Joe Courtney

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan defense measure which makes an emphatic commitment to America's undersea Naval force. In the last 2 years, we have had the following: the National Security Review in 2011, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the Nuclear Posture Review; and all of them have had the same consistent theme on this issue, which is that the U.S. Navy's preeminence in the undersea domain must not be neglected, and that sea-based deterrence is a critical insurance policy for our Nation from any emerging nuclear force. With that in mind, this measure invests $5.9 billion in the Virginia class submarine program. It will fund two submarines in 2014 and advance procurement in 2015. It has $1 billion for the Ohio replacement design work, which is the best guarantee that we will have a cost- effective production of that critical vessel. And finally, the Virginia payload module which will increase the missile capacity of the Virginia class submarine and allow the Navy to replace the capability of the SSGM force which is going to be going offline over the next 10 years. The Seapower Subcommittee, led by my friend, Mr. Forbes, has held a number of hearings which again have reemphasized the critical need for this both in our Navy and our national security. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this measure.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor a dear friend, Rachel Wheeler-Rossow. Rachel passed away on November 29th at the age of 74. Compassionate and selfless, Rachel dedicated her life to helping those less fortunate. She was a pillar of her community in Ellington, Connecticut, and she will not soon be forgotten. Rachel was born in Long Beach, California on March 20, 1939. She earned her Bachelor's Degree in Nursing from Salve Regina University and her Master's in Nursing from the Catholic University of America. In 1970, she moved to Ellington, Connecticut and threw herself into public service. Four years later, Rachel and former husband Carl founded the Alpha & Omega Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the lives of children with disabilities. Rachel and Carl ran the group out of their home, while taking in and raising nearly 50 children--a remarkable act of compassion and generosity. Rachel's work earned her recognition from former President Ronald Reagan at the White House in 1983. In 1990, she was awarded the Outstanding Humanitarian Service Award from Connecticut's Department of Children and Youth Services for her work on child welfare programs for children with HIV. The following year she also was honored with one of only 11 National Caring Awards from the Caring Institute, a Washington, DC based non-profit committed to promoting the values of integrity and public service. Rachel was deeply involved in the local government of Ellington, serving on the Board of Education, the Board of Finance, the Board of Selectmen, and as the chairwoman of the town Democratic Party. In addition to her nationally recognized efforts, her non-stop work to improve the lives of others never got in the way of her own thoughtfulness and down-to-earth manner. She was a good listener and had a modest quiet-spoken presence that carried a power and dignity that impressed all who came into contact with her. A friend of Rachel's, former Connecticut State Representative Ted Graziani, described her as ``an angel,'' whose example should inspire us all to be better people. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring Rachel Wheeler- Rossow, whose altruism touched the lives of so many people in Connecticut.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hong Nguyen, the owner of Lotus Vietnamese restaurant in Vernon, Connecticut. Hong recently announced that Lotus will be closing on December 1st after nearly thirty years of business. The Zagat-rated restaurant has received rave reviews from locals and esteemed food critics alike who return for dishes like the Bombay beef, peppered shrimp, spicy soup, and my favorite, the Saigonese pancake. Hong Nguyen served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the South Vietnamese Air Force and commanding officer of the 819th combat squadron during the Vietnam War. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, Nguyen and his family fled to the United States. With the assistance of USAF Lt. Colonel Gib Whitman, the Hongs were sponsored for U.S. citizenship and moved to Guilford, Connecticut as the first Vietnamese refugees in the State. In 1984, Hong Nguyen and his wife, Canh, opened Lotus at its first location on Route 83. In their first years in business they worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Canh did all the cooking and Hong managed the rest of the chores in the restaurant. The grueling work paid off as a growing clientele prompted the Hongs to move into a larger space on the Hartford Turnpike. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the Hong family for their achievements. Their story is a testament to the American dream, and I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, despite all of the hysterical comments like we just heard on the floor here today, it is important for people to know that, in States in which Governors embrace the Affordable Care Act and set up a high-functioning Web site, the fact of the matter is that enrollment is exceeding expectations. In Connecticut on Friday, which is where I am from, we released figures. Over 13,000 enrolled in the first 6 weeks, and the pace of enrollment is accelerating. In the last 2 weeks, they have enrolled more than they had enrolled in the prior month. On Saturday, I was at an enrollment fair--there were eight of them all across the State--and there was a full waiting room of people who were waiting their turns-- like at a deli counter to get their numbers--to sit down to get help in terms of signing up with a plan. Twenty minutes is all it took to sign up for a plan. I spoke to Merrylyn Weaver from New London, Connecticut, who said: I am finally going to have health insurance after 3 years of being without it. It took her 20 minutes to sign up for an Anthem Blue Cross Silver plan. The fact of the matter is that the message is, if you fix it, they will come. That is what this Congress should be focused on is fixing it so that the people in the waiting room like I saw in Norwich, Connecticut, are going to get help all across the country. It is time to help people get insurance, not to scare them and destroy a plan that provides them hope.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Justin Eldridge, a former Marine from Waterford, Connecticut whom we lost on October 28, 2013. Born and raised in eastern Connecticut, Justin served in the Marine Corps from 2001 to 2008. During his time in the Marines, he served a tour in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2005. After being honorably discharged and medically retired in 2008, Justin went on to take an active part in his community--particularly in serving the needs of fellow veterans and their families. Justin was instrumental in the formation of the Thames River Marine Corps Detachment that formed in 2009. During the nearly four years that Justin served as the organization's Commandant he grew the membership to more than 40 people. The Detachment annually participated in Toys for Tots drive and in 2012 distributed more than 2,000 toys to local children. Like so many of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, Justin struggled with traumatic brain injury that occurred during his Afghanistan deployment and post-traumatic stress disorder upon returning home. Justin's passing is a reminder that our nation must continue to do all it can to care for the men and women who have served our country and return home with wounds--both visible and invisible. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring Justin and his dedicated service to our nation, his community and his fellow veterans, and extending our thoughts and prayers to his family in this difficult time.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, the government announced yesterday good news for seniors: their Medicare part B premiums for 2014 will go up zero dollars and zero cents. It will stay at $104 per month. This is now the third year in a row that CMS Medicare part B premiums have defied the trustees' predictions and have come in lower than projected. It also defies the relentless campaign of misinformation that seniors have been subjected to that their Medicare part B premiums are going to go up. Just on Friday, I was at a senior fair where a woman showed me a chain email that read that Medicare part B premiums for 2014 were going up to $247 a month--just a viral infection that has been out there and that I have been confronted with at senior centers over and over again. The facts are that they are going up zero. Medicare Advantage premiums have stabilized. Medicare part B premiums have stabilized. Prescription drug costs have gone down because of closing the doughnut hole. In every respect, the Affordable Care Act since it passed in 2010 has been a winner for seniors, and it has helped strengthen the solvency of the program. Again, Medicare part B premiums are going up zero for 2014.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to a friend, a leader, and a living legend in Connecticut politics and the labor movement, John W. Olsen. After 25 years at the helm of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, John retired as President on September 25. John leaves a deep and enduring mark on the State of Connecticut after a quarter century of extraordinary leadership and dedication. A plumber by trade, John joined the Plumbers and Pipefitters union 44 years ago. He served as President of the United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters and Steamfitters, Local 133, and a former Secretary-Treasurer of the Connecticut State Building and Construction Trades Council. In 1988, at the age of 38, John was elected President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, representing 220,000 union members across the state. His 25 years as President of the AFL-CIO represents the longest tenure in the federation's history. John provided the leading public voice for organized labor for 25 years. He also presided over--and kept united--a diverse union umbrella in Connecticut. During an era where friction grew nationally between industrial and service unions and ruptured decades-old alliances, John's assiduous and fair leadership kept Connecticut's unions unified and strong and maintained labor's collective potency to advocate on behalf of working families in our state. In the political arena, John has been a force on the national, state, and local level for four decades. He pulled an upset to win a contest to become Chairman of the State Democratic Party from 2000 to 2002. He served as a member of the Democratic State Central Committee from 1982 to 1995, as Co-Chair of the State Central Platform Committee, and on the Democratic National Committee since 1996. Even in the Town of Clinton in my Congressional District, John served one term as Chair and one as Treasurer and on his hometown Democratic Town Committee. I will always be grateful for John's support and counsel for my three campaigns as a challenger, in unsuccessful efforts for Lieutenant Governor and the U.S. House in 1998 and 2002, respectively, and for my successful effort for the House in 2006. John loved an underdog, and there was never a more fierce or loyal ally to have at your side for a political fight. John's remarkable legacy at the center of Connecticut's political and policy debate for a quarter of century is a story of keen instincts, dogged determination, and ardent honesty. John's fidelity was never to his ego or personal standing but always to the cause and a positive outcome. His service will be missed, but I have no doubts that he will be as active in his ``retirement'' as he was during his sterling career. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me, my colleagues in the Connecticut delegation, John's wife Janeen, three children, Amy, Elizabeth and Christopher, and grandson, Hunter, to honor a true Connecticut patriot, John Olsen.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, the worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C., is there is a majority in the House of Representatives to reopen the government today, to reach that grand compromise that Father Conroy spoke about a few minutes ago. Over 30 House Republicans have said that they would join Democrats to pass a clean CR, which the President has said he would sign on the spot. It has already cleared the Senate, and we could end the damage that is being inflicted on this country every passing day. Day 14 is where we are today. Our National Guard, our veterans, Meals on Wheels--the list goes on and on--the National Institutes of Health, they are being crippled in this shutdown; and the power is here in this Chamber to end it by signing a discharge petition which was filed on Saturday morning. If the Speaker won't bring the bill to the floor, then the Members should do it. We are elected to represent the people of our district, not to represent the leaders of our caucus. End the shutdown. Sign the discharge petition. End the nightmare that this country is going through.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of goodness, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to House Joint Resolution 59, the clean CR, and go to conference on a budget so that we would end this idiotic government shutdown and not go on recess later today. The American people expect us to act today.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, today marks day 7 since the rollout of the health care exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Listening to the hysterical rhetoric from the majority party in the House, you would think that America's basic freedoms and economy would be in ruins after day 7. And in fact, there have been some problems in terms of some of the accessing through the database that was set up. Part of the problem was the fact that millions of Americans, far more than anyone expected, even the most ardent supporters of the law, have swamped the system, which, if you think about it, I think speaks volumes about the fact that there is a tremendous need out there for this affordable care--which, again, the law I think made an historic step in terms of advancing it. I am proud of the fact that coming from the State of Connecticut, which, again, is one of the States that did not stonewall the legislation, Governor Malloy moved forward as quickly as possible and set up a system that was actually ready last week to deal with the onslaught of emails and calls into the call centers. As of Friday, they tallied over 100,000 contacts that came into the system. Again, they enrolled actually over a thousand people even though, again, coverage doesn't even begin until January. So for a lot of people, again, the need to enroll right away doesn't exist right now because you have to actually write a check if you are going to enroll this early. But nonetheless, still, a thousand people have already signed up. And as I said, 100,000 were able to contact the system and interacted with it with little or no problem. First of all, I would just like to again congratulate Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman, who has been sort of shepherding and quarterbacking this process over the last few months or so, again, to make sure that Connecticut's system was ready. And I wanted to share, again, a couple of the stories of individuals who contacted the Connecticut Health Exchange over the last week or so to describe their experiences. There was 48-year-old Elly Baros, who said that she was pleased to be one step closer to enrolling in health insurance. The New Britain woman, who spent the entire afternoon at the health center going through her options, has been without coverage for a year and a half due to a layoff. She said that she has been holding her breath, thanking God every day ``I don't get sick or get into a car accident.'' She was excited to learn that she could get good individual coverage for about $70 to $200 a month or possibly even qualify for expanded Medicaid coverage. I had a conversation and an email with a woman from Norwich, who is a 50-year-old, self-employed individual, who said to me: I currently pay $980 a month for coverage for myself. I have a rare preexisting condition known as trigeminal neuralgia, which is treated by medication in four annual visits to my doctor. For this, I am considered a ``heavy utilizer.'' My condition interferes with my ability to earn. Right now, what she is paying is on par with her mortgage payment. After speaking with my insurance agent, I found out that my premiums under the Affordable Care Act will be cut to $440 a month. When I spoke to her on the phone the other day, she said when her agent called her and gave her this news she did a happy dance in her office, knowing that her health insurance premiums were going to be cut in half. Again, a 50-year-old, working individual who is now paying $980 a month is seeing her health insurance bill cut in half because of the health care exchange. She is one of these people who has contacted the system, but she hasn't enrolled yet, but she will. Believe me. She cannot believe that we are at a point right now where there is a concerted, intentional effort to shut the government down in an effort to deny her--somebody who, again, has a preexisting condition--access to a smarter, more rational marketplace than the one that exists today. The stories go on and on. I have a letter from an individual who actually wrote to The New York Times, talking about the fact that on day 1 there were reports about how terrible the system is. She said: I tried to sign up. I had absolutely no difficulty getting all the answers I needed and all the forms to fill out on the very first try. The entire process was simple, direct, and easy to follow. Please don't forget all of us who, while maybe not newsworthy, are a large part of the equation. Her name is Hu Lindsay from Norwalk, Connecticut. So, again, the folks at the health care exchange who have been planning and preparing for months have demonstrated that that demand can be met if you have the right planning in place and that, when people actually have a chance to get past all the nonsense that is thrown around out there about the end of American freedom and actually see that they can buy private health insurance plans--again, Connecticut offers three private health insurance plans, Anthem Blue Cross, ConnectiCare, and Healthy Connecticut--the system will work. That's why we must keep this government open and not buckle to the folks who want to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, the worst-kept secret in Washington, DC, is there is a majority in this House to pass a clean CR. In fact, this morning, a list of 21 House Republican Members who said they would vote for a clean CR was published. It would end this idiotic shutdown that is keeping 800,000 Federal employees from doing their job. Unfortunately, a few minutes ago, the official Speaker announced that he is not going to listen to the will of this House. Instead, we're going to do these salami-sliced spending bills. And, incredibly, we're going on recess on tomorrow through Monday night. Well, Monday morning in Stratford, Connecticut, thousands of defense workers at Sikorsky Aircraft are not going to be able to go to work because the contract compliance officers from the Department of Defense who haven't been on the job for the last week can't certify the helicopter parts and engines that allow them to do their work. Those layoffs are on this Speaker's head. Those layoffs are on the majority party's head. Allow the majority of this House to have a vote. There are 21 of your colleagues that are prepared to do it today, and the President would sign it tonight. Those workers could go to work on Monday and protect the warfighters of this country.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was opening day for the Affordable Care Act in the State of Connecticut. Despite the hysterical predictions on the other side, where you would have thought the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse would be riding through the streets of New London, Norwich, and Hartford, instead, the headlines this morning were: Enrollment better than expected on exchange's first day. Forty-five thousand people contacted the Connecticut exchange. Hundreds enrolled. They didn't wait until January to begin the process of getting health coverage. One of them was a lady named Elly Banos, 48 years old, who said she's been without coverage for a year and half due to a layoff. She's been holding her breath and ``thanking God every day that I don't get sick or get into a car accident.'' She was excited to learn that she could get good individual coverage for a month or qualify for the expanded Medicaid coverage. Another, Babz Ivy, said that she has gone to bed ``with a prayer on my lips, asking God to keep me healthy and in no need of medical attention.'' ``Today was amazing,'' Ivy said. ``I felt so empowered and in control of my health.'' The fact of the matter is these are the targets of the shutdown effort. It's not President Obama or Democrats in Congress. It's people like Elly Banos and Babz Ivy that we need to protect by keeping this government open and allowing people to get access to health care for the first time in American history.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor SPC Jon Michael Naholnik who died suddenly on Wednesday, September 25 of a ``Wounded Heart'' at the age of 32. Those who were lucky enough to have Jon in their life knew that he was a loving father, brother, son and friend. Jon was an Afghanistan veteran who proudly served his country in the Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 102nd Infantry Regiment. He attended Waterford High school and began work at Millstone Power Station as an armed guard after he graduated. In 2007, he decided to join the Army National Guard as his father Nik and his grandfather Charlie did before him. In 2011, after returning home to Montville, Jon survived a freak lightning strike outside his home. Although he knew that he was lucky to survive, Jon maintained a great sense of humor about the incident. He told a reporter that he enjoyed watching storms but would probably stay indoors in the future. I ask my colleagues to join with me to honor SPC Jon Michael Naholnik and his patriotic service to our Nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family in this difficult time.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in Groton, Connecticut, which is a community right on Long Island Sound, The Day Newspaper of New London hosted a job fair for the surrounding area, which I had the opportunity to attend for about an hour or so. And the good news is that there were 16 companies that were there, employers who had job openings who, again, were anxious to use the job fair as a chance to meet face-to-face with folks who attended. The distressing news, though, was that there were over 800 people who showed up for the event. The line wound out from the ballroom of the Groton Inn and Suites through the lobby and onto the sidewalk and into the parking lot; and, clearly, if anyone who was attending there, it was quite obvious that there was not even close to the number of openings to match up with the number of people who were in attendance. As I said, I had a chance to visit for a while, walked around, talked to a number of people, and was struck by the fact that the number one question on people's minds who, again, were carrying heavy burdens, some of them who had been out of work for as much as 18 months, 2 years, a lot of young people who just graduated from college, carrying student loans, anxious to try and get a start in life and a way to pay the bills, the question was, Well, is Congress going to shut down the government? And it seemed sort of a little bit out of sync with the reality of what was going on in the room. But, in fact, thinking about it, I mean, it's very clear that the people there understood instinctively that a government shutdown in roughly 8 or 9 days is exactly the wrong thing that the U.S. economy needs right now, particularly in terms of fostering job growth and giving people confidence about the future. That event, compounded by a debt limit showdown, which now the Treasury Department announced this morning that on October 17 the borrowing authority of the U.S. Treasury, the full faith and credit of our country, is actually going to expire in terms of being able to pay the bills for our Nation. Whether it's our troops over in Afghanistan, whether it's the folks who protect us at our airports, whether it's the FBI, the Coast Guard which, again, my district is home of the Coast Guard Academy, the notion that our Nation, which has always honored its full faith and credit over the 230-plus years of its history, would somehow be put into doubt is, again, another one of these self-inflicted body blows that this institution is on the verge of inflicting, again, on a very fragile economy. When you looked in the faces of the people who were at that job fair yesterday, I'm very proud of the fact that I come from a State with very high educational attainment levels, really, in the top five in the country. What was clear was that you were talking to people who were, in many instances, very experienced employees, working in manufacturing, pharmaceutical, retail businesses, many of them with certainly strong educational backgrounds, with college degrees and post-college degrees. They're ready. They're ready to go out and support themselves and their families; and talking to them about food stamps, or this type of public assistance or that type of public assistance, that's not what they're looking for. They're looking for an economy that has a horizon so that employers and budget-makers and individuals who are so critical in terms of investment decisions in this country are going to have confidence about the fact that we're not going to capsize the world's financial markets by, basically, threatening the value of U.S. Treasury bonds, which is still the number one security in the world today. The question is whether in a month's time that's still going to be the case. It is time for this institution to start focusing on what people really get up and worry about every single day, which is about jobs, the economy, and the future of their families. I don't want to end on a totally depressing note, and I want to end on a positive note. In the first week of August, I had the privilege to be at the Oval Office for a bill signing on the student loan legislation, which cut the interest rates on the Stafford Loan program from 6.8 percent to 3.8 percent. Again, as a member of the Education Committee, this is an issue I've been working on for a number of years. It was a hard-fought compromise to get that measure to the President's desk in August. We'll save thousands of dollars for middle class families and for students who are going to college. But the fact is that we were standing there behind President Obama with the Republican chairman of the Education Committee to my left; the Independent Senator from Maine, Angus King, to my right; and other Democrats and Republicans who were in the room. The fact of the matter is that event showed that, when we do our duty in this institution, when people actually recognize that we're not here as part of a debate club, we're not here to read ``Green Eggs and Ham,'' like the circus that's going on over in the Senate right now; but that we're here to do our work and to pass measures to protect America's middle class. Let's get the jobs of this country growing again. Let's pass a budget. Let's protect America's full faith and credit in the next couple of weeks or so, and then this economy is poised to grow, and we're going to help those people who were lined up yesterday in Groton, Connecticut.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the pending legislation, H.R. 2747, the Streamlining Claims Processing for Federal Contractor Employees Act, which will transfer the authority for processing claims under the Davis-Bacon Act from the Government Accountability Office to the Department of Labor. As the Department of Labor is already responsible for many aspects of Davis-Bacon, this change will help streamline the process and ensure that workers receive their hard-earned pay in a timelier and more efficient manner. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for introducing this commonsense fix, which I am pleased to cosponsor. It is time that we transfer this administrative responsibility to the agency that enforces the law, and I hope that this bill will be the first step in a larger effort to allow the Department of Labor to engage in further enforcement actions under the Davis-Bacon Act, including the GAO's current debarment authority. As a strong supporter of Davis-Bacon and of the protections it provides our contracted workers, I am pleased to see that this bill will help streamline the process and allow our workers access to the prevailing wages they have rightly earned. That's why I rise in support of H.R. 2747, and I thank the gentleman from Michigan for introducing the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense proposal, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this misguided piece of legislation, which would erect new obstacles and red tape to protecting American lives. At the outset, let me just reiterate what Mr. Cohen said earlier in his opening remarks, which is that Congress already has the power to disapprove any rule through the Congressional Review Act, through the appropriations process, and through other authorizing legislation. H.R. 367, let's face it, is essentially an attempt to impose a procedural chokehold on protecting American citizens. I want to talk about one of those proposed rules, which is now pending at OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is a rule to prevent the continuing litany of workplace fire and explosions from combustible dust. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee didn't see fit to allow an amendment offered by Representative George Miller to exclude that rule from the underlying bill. It has been abundantly clear for a decade that Federal regulatory action is needed to prevent combustible dust explosions and fires. In 2003, the Chemical Safety Board found that protections to stop these explosions were grossly inadequate. The Board identified hundreds of other combustible dust fires and explosions, causing at least 119 fatalities and 715 injuries over the last 15 years. The investigators themselves are not alone in demanding action. Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress recently about how her brother Shawn was killed in a metal dust fire at an aluminum wheel plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003. She told us how he was left lying on a smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle tissue. And each breath caused his internal organs to be burned even more. Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been the last. It has been more than 5 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia, an explosion that killed 14 workers. It caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage because an unchecked accumulation of sugar dust ignited and caused a chain of explosions, leveling the plant. These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 49 major combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 18 and injured 131 workers since Imperial Sugar. More recently, five workers were killed in three separate events at a factory north of Nashville because an iron powder processing plant failed to abate repeated dust hazards. Each of the five left behind a wife and child; one had four children under 11, another became a grandfather the day before he was killed. Widows have called on their government to protect them, and that's where OSHA comes in. In 2009, OSHA finally started work on a rule to reduce the risk of these explosions. There will be small business panels, risk assessments, public hearings, and plenty of opportunities for comments. Despite the clear need to move forward, this bill would give special interests a new way to block needed protections, and they are already lining up to kill a rule they dislike. The sad truth is that the underlying bill is nothing more than an effort to put the powerful above the lives and limbs of working families and their widows. I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill. If I have another few seconds, I just want to say we are now hours away from a 5-week recess. 640,000 DOD civilian employees are looking at Congress, asking why they should be furloughed for the next 8 weeks, losing 20 percent of their pay, some of whom are doing critical work for our national security, and yet not once in the over 200 days since this Congress was sworn in, has the governing majority brought a bill to this floor to turn off sequester and make sure that these people who are doing critical work for our national security can do their job. That's what we should be focused on. We should cancel the recess, turn off sequester, and end the endless debate about bills that are headed nowhere.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I wrote the following letter to the Under Secretary of Defense a few days ago: Just this past Saturday, I attended a welcome home event for the 1109th TASMG, the Connecticut National Guard, who spent the last year in Afghanistan providing critical maintenance for our helicopter fleet. Their joy at being home with family was undermined by the reality that nearly a third of the 100 returning members are dual-status technicians and, therefore, hit by furlough. After serving in a war zone away from family, it was a bitter pill for these patriots to lose 20 percent of their pay almost immediately upon their return. I do believe that the Department of Defense can do a better job managing the furloughs. However, the real responsibility rests in this Chamber to turn off sequester. It has been 210 days since the governing Republican majority took power, and 81 legislative days that we have not taken up one measure to turn off sequester during that time. Incredibly, in 3 days, we are going on a 5-week recess, and on Friday we're going to vote for the 40th time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I have a news flash: it's not going anywhere. We should cancel the recess, and we should focus on making sure that these patriots are not treated so shabbily. We should make sure that the 600,000-plus civilian DOD Federal employees have their furloughs turned off. Cancel the recess. Let's turn off sequester. Let's stand up for America's middle class.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of the Student Loan Certainty Act and again want to emphasize the fact that, compared to the product that came out of this Chamber on May 23 that the majority passed on a partisan, party-line vote, on which the White House issued a veto threat, the final bill that's before us here today is a far superior piece of legislation that protects students. Again, as Mr. Miller said, the numbers don't lie. The bill that the Republicans passed on May 23 had a 4.3 percent interest rate, which was a teaser rate. The bill that's being passed here today is 3.86 percent, and over time, that nets about $5,000 of additional savings for students. That's real money, and that certainly is something that's worth the wait. But what I want to point out is that there is actually, in my opinion, a more fundamental difference which is so critical for borrowers, which is that this piece of legislation will fix the rate at time of origination. In other words, when students take on these 10- year notes, which is what Stafford student loans are, the rate is fixed at the time the note is written. The bill that came out on May 23 was a floating variable rate product which would not be set until the time that students commenced payment. Some students take Stafford loans out over a period of 5 and 6 years, so the rates that they were touting back on May 23 were an illusion. They were not what the rate was that the student actually was going to be paying. And again, for this country, which went through the trauma of the subprime mortgage variable rate fiasco, this is a critical difference which provides greater protection for the borrower. If you go online today, a 30-year mortgage for a house is about 4 percent, for an auto loan it's about 3.8 percent. They are fixed loans if you took those loans out today. And that's exactly what this compromise creates is that there will be real borrower certainty and protection, unlike the bill that recklessly, and on a partisan, party- line basis, flew out of this Chamber on May 23. This is a better deal for America's students. It's why, again, the process that we went through was worth it. And again, it's certainly worth people's support. At the end of the day, though, let's remember, students are still paying into the deficit of this country. The Congressional Budget Office has told us over 10 years, $184 billion of revenue is going to be generated through this program towards the deficit. We need to change that. That's not the purpose of the Stafford student loan program. When Senator Stafford from Vermont passed it many years ago, it was about providing an affordable system of access for higher education, not a cash windfall for the coffers of the government. And that's why we have more work to do. That's why we need to pass a Higher Education Authorization Act which, again, balances these priorities in the right direction for students, not for government coffers. And again, this legislation gives us the time to address that issue and come out with an even better program for students which, again, is good for them and good for our country, to make sure that we have a workforce which is ready for the challenges of the future.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I insert this letter from myself to Under Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Robert F. Hale. Hon. Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Pentagon,Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Hale: Thank you for providing me and members of the Readiness Subcommittee a briefing on the implementation of civilian furloughs at the Department of Defense. I appreciate your first-hand view of the policy and its impacts on our defense civilian workforce and our military readiness, and I benefitted from your candid remarks about the challenges that sequestration continues to present to the department. While I continue to believe that the best way to address furloughs and other impacts to our military readiness is for Congress to pass a comprehensive and balanced plan to end sequestration, I also believe that the department must continue to evaluate all options available to it in reducing or eliminating furloughs this year. During our briefing you indicated that the department was evaluating whether additional reductions in furlough days can be made. It is my hope that the department will finish that analysis and make a positive public announcement on that matter as quickly as possible in order to provide furloughed employees the greatest possible certainty as to their financial outlook for the rest of the year. Additionally, as I and several of my colleagues mentioned in our session, there are a number of specific aspects of the current furlough policy that continue to frustrate those individuals facing loss of pay through no fault of their own. For example, I believe that the individual military services and agencies can be provided with greater flexibility to pay down or eliminate furloughs under their purview. Additionally, further consideration must be given to the status of dual status technicians and those whose work is funded through the defense working capital funds--both workforces are critical to the day-to-day needs of our military, and I continue to believe that exceptions must be made for these personnel. Just this past Saturday, I attended a welcome home event for the 1109th TASMG of the Connecticut National Guard, who spent the last year in Afghanistan providing critical maintenance for our helicopter fleet. Their joy at being home with family was undermined with the reality that nearly a third of the 100 returning members are dual status technicians and therefore hit by furlough. After serving in a war zone away from family, it was a bitter pill for these patriots to lose 20 percent of their pay almost immediately upon return. As I also mentioned in our briefing, the department must better quantify and communicate the cuts that have already been made in attempting to avoid furloughs. When I recently met with furloughed personnel at Naval Submarine Base New London, I received many questions about whether the department made any attempts to cut back on contracting for services, returning outsourced work to federal employees and other potential ways to find the savings necessary to reduce or eliminate furloughs. It is my hope that you will provide members of this committee, as well as the workforce at large, with additional information on the extent to which the department has, or plans, to cut in other areas to limit the reach of furloughs. Finally, let me thank you for your positive words about the work that our DOD civilians do each and every day in support of the defense of our nation. As you shared in our meeting, one of the most disappointing impacts of the furloughs has been giving our defense civilians the impression that they are not important to or valued by the department, by Congress and by our fellow Americans. That these furloughs, and the greater budget uncertainty at large, is causing long-serving and hard working civilian professionals to question whether they want to stay at the defense department is one of the most insidious impacts of this budget impasse. That is why I hope you and Secretary Hagel will continue to do all you can to reduce or eliminate furloughs, revisit specific unique exemptions, and provide more detailed information about the steps you have, and will continue to take, to limit furloughs through reductions in areas like service contracting and reversing outsourcing decisions. Thank you, again, for taking the time to meet with me and my colleagues on the Readiness Subcommittee, and I sincerely thank you for your service to our country in these challenging times. Sincerely, Joe Courtney, Member of Congress.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, 48 years ago today, Lyndon Johnson, in Independence, Missouri, signed into law the Medicare program in the presence of former President Harry S. Truman. It's important when you think about that event, which I would argue transformed our country, to go back in time and remember that seniors in 1965, only half had health insurance of any sort; 30 percent of America's seniors lived in poverty; and life expectancy for America's seniors was age 70. If you fast toward today, 48 years later, we have universal health insurance coverage for all seniors, life expectancy is now age 79, and only 7 percent of seniors live below the poverty line. The decision by Congress earlier that year--it was April of 1965 when our colleague, Congressman John Dingell, was sitting in the Speaker's Chair and brought the gavel down when the Medicare law was passed--has, again, paid off huge dividends in terms of transforming America's health care system. Back then, Medicare only covered doctor visits and hospital visits. Today, it covers a broad range of services for seniors--dialysis, medical equipment, outpatient services, such as prescription drug coverage--and as a result, the health care sector of our country has grown. For many, it has created literally careers and opportunities to pursue a system which, again, has produced great results for the folks who live in our country over age 65 and people on disability. Today, we have challenges that Medicare faces, but there is good news. The Trustees for Medicare recently issued their annual report, and it showed that the solvency of the Medicare trust fund this year was extended out an additional 2 years to 2026. And beyond that date, Medicare does not go bankrupt to zero. There is a shortfall, in terms of the projections by the Trustees, of roughly about 10 percent--a serious problem, but one that we can manage using smart changes to the system. And the Trustees, in their reports, pointed to the Affordable Care Act, when it was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, as extending by 9 years the solvency of the Medicare system. For seniors, under the Affordable Care Act, they are now getting more help with prescription drug assistance. They were stranded in the doughnut hole prior to 2010. Now they get over half of the cost of those prescription drugs while they're in the doughnut hole discounted. They are also getting free preventive care services--whether it's colonoscopies, annual checkups, smoking cessation programs. All of those essential services for primary care now carry no out-of-pocket costs because of the Affordable Care Act. The fact is that those changes have extended the solvency of the Affordable Care Act. We have not cut benefits for seniors. We have not made unwise choices, such as the Ryan budget, which proposed raising the eligibility age for seniors to qualify for Medicare to age 67 and would butcher the program into private health insurance for people under age 55, in other words, turning the clock back to where we were 48 years ago when President Johnson signed that measure into law. The best way to celebrate Medicare's birthday--which, again, has transformed the lives of every American family since it was enacted in 1965--is to make smart changes to the system, to build on the progress of the Affordable Care Act, to make sure that it's going to be there for our children and our grandchildren, just like the people who had the wisdom to vote for that program 48 years ago and signed it into law--again, with the vision and prophesy of Harry S. Truman, who, as a Senator representing the State of Missouri, had proposed Medicare as a law and then saw, before his time on Earth ended, it actually come to fruition. Medicare is a wonderful program. It is a program which every family is touched by and has experienced and benefited from. Our best way to celebrate its birthday today is to redouble our efforts to extend its solvency and to make sure that all American families, today and in the future, are able to enjoy its wonderful benefits.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2013, the State of Connecticut and our nation lost an extraordinary man, David McCourt. A New London native, David's life served as a beacon of hope and wisdom in our difficult times. David was a highly successful businessman who took over a family business, ABCO Welding Supply, in 1986 with his brother Bill. Through hard work and entrepreneurial skill, they grew the business and achieved a comfortable station in life. Tragically on September 11, 2001, that idyllic story was violently upset when his wife Ruth and four-year-old daughter Juliana died aboard United Flight 175 that crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. The horror and pain of that loss was devastating to David and any person would be forgiven for reacting to such a loss with anger and depression. David, however, responded differently. After a period of mourning he sought heal the division and conflict which are part of modern existence, rather than inflame violence and hate. After a spiritual awakening, he helped found B.R.A.V.E. Juliana, a program of HELP USA. He devoted his time to teach children nonviolence and conflict resolution. He said ``what we have to do is start with the children in this country and teach them tolerance, compassion, and understanding.'' In 2002, he also founded the Juliana Valentine McCourt Children's Education Fund. Each year the fund gives out funding to local youth organizations. Each year the New London Police Department and Fire Department host a benefit softball game to remember the events of 9/11 and raise donations for the McCourt Fund. The Juliana Valentine McCourt Memorial Softball game brings the whole community together in remembrance of the victims. New London was very pleased and excited when David attended the 2012 game, which raised over $1,000 for the McCourt fund. New London's Lyman Allyn Art museum established a garden to honor the memories of Juliana and Ruth. The McCourt memorial garden according to David serves as a ``metaphor for seasons and renewal and healing for those who are left behind.'' David spoke powerfully at the 10 year commemorative event held at the McCourt memorial garden. Mr. McCourt passed away on July 11 after a courageous battle with metastic melanoma. He leaves behind his current wife, Mary Bryant McCourt, his four children, and nine grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of David McCourt, and sharing our condolences with the family he leaves behind.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I'd like to just sort of add a few points to the gentleman's prior comments. First of all, the fleet is not being replaced one to one--the current fleet size is 14, and the new fleet will be 12. The program has already been delayed by 2 years because of earlier reductions in the defense budget. That 2-year delay is going to push us right up to 2021, which is when the aging fleet which is in play right now is going to start being decommissioned over time in terms of the reduction. Because of investment in design and development, which is what this amendment is focused on, we have saved $2 billion per vessel from where the Navy started when this project first commenced a number of years ago. It was $7 billion, and we are down to $5 billion per boat in terms of the projected costs that the Navy has actually come forward with. I would just lastly note that the strategic review, which has been done under Secretary Gates and under Secretary Hagel, has repeatedly put SSBN replacement at the absolute apex in terms of national defense priorities, again, for a lot of the reasons the prior speaker indicated. Sea-based nuclear deterrence fits in perfectly well with the START Treaty, but as for the math of eight subs for 1,000 warheads, if you're going to have sailors being back home after deployment and if you're going to have repairs and maintenance, you'll need 12 as a bare minimum--a far cry from the Cold War days when 41 for Freedom was actually the size of this fleet. We are now down to the bare bones, and we should not cut it any further. I would oppose the amendment.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the re-launching of the Charles W. Morgan this weekend at the Mystic Seaport: The Museum of America and the Sea. The Morgan, a 172-year-old whaling vessel, was built and launched from New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1841. For more than 200 years, vessels like her were the economic backbone of New England. Since its retirement from the whaling industry in 1921, the Morgan has served as a living artifact and a testament to the ingenuity, risk, and entrepreneurship of the United States. Today, the Morgan is a National Historic Landmark vessel, the only remaining wooden whaleship in the world, and the oldest commercial vessel in the United States. The Morgan has completed a 5-year, multi-million dollar restoration at the Preservation Shipyard of Mystic Seaport and the Sea and will be relaunched this weekend. Individuals and organizations from 22 States have contributed materials and expertise to make this launch possible. From educational curriculum to whaleboats, research to anchors, the contributions to the restoration of the Morgan represent a truly national effort and will help make the Morgan's mission that much more meaningful. The reach of these efforts touch literally every region and corner of our nation, with contributions from the following states: Alaska Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Next summer, the Morgan will embark on a ceremonial 38th voyage, embarking on a new mission devoted to history, education, science, and ocean awareness. Most notably, the Morgan will sail with the wood from trees blown down from recent hurricanes in her frame and decks--giving new life to these trees as the Morgan embarks on her own new life. For instance, live Oak wood from trees in Texas damaged in Hurricane Ike is used in the ship's frame, live oak trees from Florida blown down in Hurricane Ivan, White Oak and White Pine wood blown down by Hurricane Sandy in New York, and live Oak wood from trees in Mississippi damaged during Hurricane Katrina. That we can turn the devastation of these storms in to a positive outcome that will have lasting impact is a unique and special part of this weekend's ceremony. Mr. Speaker, there is an understandably high level of excitement for this weekend's festivities and the Morgan's upcoming mission of education, exploration and discovery next summer. I ask all my colleagues to join me in offering our congratulations to the Mystic Seaport and all those who made the restoration of the Morgan possible.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, as the poison of sequestration is now seeping through America's economy, society, and national defense, there's a lot of folks in this city who are suddenly running around saying that they oppose sequestration. But I think if you look closely at this legislation, it bakes in sequestration funding levels for education--not just for next year, but for the next 6 years. Mr. Chairman, I supported the defense authorization bill, along with the chairman of my committee, a few weeks ago, which actually used pre- sequestration levels for our national defense. Yet here today we are voting on a bill which tells America's children: sorry, you're stuck with sequestration. You have to allow, basically, this chain saw which is going through Federal programs to continue for the next 6 years at exactly the time when we should, as a national priority, be investing more in education. We heard from the prior speaker about the need for STEM. Absolutely. There is nothing in this bill that prioritizes or focuses on the need for this country to step up the STEM education curriculum in this country. This bill is the wrong direction for people who care about upgrading America's competitiveness. Again, if you think about it, is China really going to sequester its education funding over the next 6 years? Are any of our other large economic competitors doing that? Of course not. This bill is a retreat; it is a surrender to sequestration--not for ourselves, but for our children. It is shameful. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5.

Mr. COURTNEY

Mr. COURTNEY. Because of inaction of this Congress, people are losing 20 percent of their paycheck. That's what's hurting the American economy right now. We have a bipartisan immigration bill which cleared the Senate which we know, from CBO, would actually reduce the deficit and grow the economy. That's what we should be voting on. We had a bipartisan farm bill which passed the Senate which, again, provides a real horizon for rural America. That's what we should be voting on. Instead, we are filling this Chamber up with more of the tired rhetoric for a bill that does absolutely nothing and which the Congressional Research Service shows us is completely, totally outside of well-established precedent of American law. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, July 16, 2013. Memorandum To: Honorable Joe Courtney--Attention: Maija Welton From: Erika K. Lunder, Legislative Attorney; Carol A. Pettit, Legislative Attorney Subject: Recent Examples of IRS Postponement of Statutory Effective Dates This memorandum responds to your request for examples of instances in which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has postponed statutorily imposed effective dates. This memorandum does not discuss the July 2013 announcement by the Obama Administration to delay implementation of the employer reporting responsibility requirements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Four recent examples where the Treasury Department, through IRS, has postponed statutorily imposed effective dates are detailed in this memorandum. 1. The IRS postponed the effective date for a requirement that federal and state governments, along with their political subdivisions and instrumentalities, withhold 3% of payments to persons providing property or services. The 2006 law imposing the requirement stated the withholding provision ``shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.'' In 2008, the IRS issued proposed regulations that would ``generally be effective for payments made after the later of December 31, 2010, or the date that is 6 months after the publication of final regulations.'' In 2009, and prior to the regulations being finalized, Congress extended the effective date in the original Act, from December 31, 2010, to December 31, 2011. In May 2011, the IRS issued final regulations, which provided that the withholding requirements would ``apply to payments made after December 31, 2012.'' The IRS explained the reasons for the postponed effective date: Numerous commenters indicated that an extended period of time following the issuance of final regulations would be necessary for government entities to adopt the systems and processes necessary to comply with the Sec. 3402(t) withholding and related reporting requirements. Noting the necessity to formulate government acquisition rules that are consistent with the final regulations, as well as the infrastructure needed to apply those rules, some commenters stated that government entities would need at least 18 months from the issuance of final regulations under section 3402(t) to be able to comply. In response to these practical considerations, the final regulations provide that the withholding and reporting requirements under these regulations apply to payments made after December 31, 2012, subject to an existing contract exception . . . With respect to payments before January 1, 2013, government entities are not required to apply section 3402(t) withholding and the related reporting, and accordingly will not be subject to any liability, penalties or interest for failure to do so. In November 2011, Congress repealed the 3% withholding requirement, so it never went into effect. 2. The IRS provided a transitional period for the electronic filing mandate enacted by the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. As a result, the effective date of the provision was postponed for one year for preparers who anticipated filing more than 10 but fewer than 100 returns during calendar year 2011. As enacted, the provision generally required that tax return preparers who anticipated filing more than 10 individual tax returns during a calendar year must file those returns on magnetic media. The requirement was statutorily effective for returns filed after December 31, 2010. However, on December 2, 2010, the IRS issued both a notice and proposed regulation postponing the electronic filing mandate for those otherwise affected preparers who anticipated filing fewer than 100 individual tax returns. Those preparers generally would only be required to electronically file returns that they filed after December 31, 2011. The reason given for the transition period was ``to promote the effective and efficient administration of the electronic filing requirement in section 6011(e)(3).'' The final regulation basically adopted the proposed regulation and was effective March 30, 2011. 3. The IRS has extended various deadlines under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). FATCA imposes reporting, withholding, and other requirements on certain foreign financial institutions (FFIs) and payments. The 2010 law enacting FATCA provides that, in general, ``the amendments made by this section shall apply to payments made after December 31. 2012.'' In July 2011, the IRS released a notice that provided a timeline for implementing some of the Act's requirements. For example, the notice provided that certain reporting requirements would start in 2014, and that the withholding requirements would begin on January 1, 2014, and be fully phased in on January 1, 2015. The notice explained the reasons for the phased-in implementation: Treasury and the IRS have received numerous comments concerning the practical difficulties in implementing aspects of the Chapter 4 rules within the time frames provided in the Act and under Notice 2010-60 and Notice 2011-34. The challenges identified relate to the time to develop compliance, reporting, and withholding systems necessary to comply with Chapter 4 and the implementing notices. In addition, a number of stakeholders have noted that complying with certain provisions may require coordination with a number of foreign governments. Treasury and the IRS have met with stakeholders and foreign governments to understand the specific administrative and legal challenges that must be addressed and the time necessary to do so. While the Act provides that the provisions of Chapter 4 are effective beginning in 2013, Treasury and the IRS have determined that because Chapter 4 creates the need for significant modifications to the information management systems of FFIs, withholding agents, and the IRS, it is reasonable for regulations to provide for a phased implementation of the various provisions of Chapter 4. The IRS subsequently issued proposed regulations in February 2012, and in October 2012 released an announcement that extended an additional deadline, citing to practical concerns with the proposed regulations' time frames. The announcement explained that: The Treasury Department and the IRS have received comments identifying certain practical issues in implementing the chapter 4 rules within the time frames prescribed in the proposed regulations. In particular, comments have noted that the chapter 4 status of entity account holders may change during 2013 as FFIs enter into FFI agreements with the IRS, with the result that withholding agents that put in place new account opening procedures by January 1, 2013, could be required to undertake duplicative efforts to verify an FFI's status as a participating, deemed-compliant, or nonparticipating FFI. Furthermore, comments have indicated that global financial institutions intend to implement uniform due diligence procedures for all affiliates. Accordingly, these comments have suggested aligning the timelines for due diligence for U.S. withholding agents, FFIs in countries with Intergovernmental Agreements, and FF Is in countries without Intergovernmental Agreements in order to significantly reduce administrative burden. On July 13, 2013, the IRS issued another notice, which extended the effective date for withholding on some payments to July 1, 2014. 4. The IRS extended the effective date of legislation that had provided for retroactive application of several aviation- related taxes. On July 23, 2011, the federal excise taxes on amounts paid for air transportation of people and property expired, and the tax rates on aviation fuel and gasoline were reduced. The Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, enacted into law on August 5, 2011, extended the two taxes and the prior rates, retroactive back to July 23, 2011. On August 5, 2011, the IRS announced that it would not require the payment or collection of the two air transportation taxes until August 8, 2011, due to the administrative burden that would arise from requiring payment and collection on past purchases, and would provide penalty relief for taxpayers paying the fuel taxes until that same day.