Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, Bloomberg News released an analysis, district by district around America, of the highest concentration of 45- to 54-year-olds. The reason they did this analysis was to see and focus on where the impact of the Republican Medicare plan would land the hardest. In the top 10 districts which they identified, the headline of this article, which obviously is Bloomberg News, a nonpartisan news service, was: Medicare Cuts Would Hit Republican Lawmakers. Nine out of the top 10 districts in America with that highest 45 to 54 concentration are Republican districts. The 10th is the Second Congressional District, which I

have the honor of representing in eastern Connecticut.

Now, some may ask why was Bloomberg looking at the population of 45- to 54-year-olds? Well, the Ryan Medicare plan radically alters the Medicare program, starting in 2022, for people who today are 54 years old or younger. Starting with that age group, Medicare will no longer be a guaranteed benefit, but instead will be a voucher plan where Americans will be given an $8,000 payment and told, Good luck. Go out and buy insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office has already analyzed what that means to someone aged 54 today in terms of out-of-pocket costs. In fact, it would double the out-of-pocket costs for those 54 and below, in year one, who enroll in the Medicare program. Over time, we have an analysis which shows what the true out-of-pocket costs would be for 55-year-olds with a normal American life expectancy. It would raise their out-of- pocket costs--these are additional costs--by $182,000.

So for anybody who is out there today who is in that age group, you'd better start saving up because you're going to need a lot more retirement assets just to keep level with what an American who turns 65 today gets under the Medicare program.

We have heard a lot from just, again, one of the speakers a few minutes before, who was just making comments about Medicare's going broke and that people 65 and up are going to be protected in terms of their Medicare. Wrong. The Ryan Republican plan would immediately cancel new benefits for seniors today, that they have started to enjoy, starting in January: annual checkups, cancer screenings, smoking cessation.

I had a town hall back in Norwich, Connecticut, just a couple of days ago where I had a young primary care doctor who was talking about the fact that the new annual check-up has allowed her that extra time to spend with patients, and she has detected three cancers because of the fact that she now has the tools to do her job smartly and efficiently.

The Ryan Republican plan would cancel that annual check-up coverage, which the Affordable Care Act kicked in in January, along with cancer screenings and along with smoking cessation--all smart, preventative, wellness-oriented care which will save the Medicare program money, again, for people 55 and younger. This chart shows how the out-of- pocket costs grow exponentially.

I see some young folks up in the audience there. If you're 15 years old, your out-of-pocket costs are going to be $711,000 higher than a 65-year-old's today who is entering the Medicare program.

What this Ryan plan really amounts to is just simply a cost shift to patients and families. It does nothing to make a more efficient health care system, and that is not a solution to the problem.

We also heard that Medicare is going broke, that it is going to be bankrupt in 2024. If you read the trustees' report, you will see, in fact, that it is a totally misleading comment. What the trustees reported was that there are sufficient funds in the program to cover 90 percent of the costs of Medicare and, starting in 2024, for at least another decade and a half. Now, that shortfall is a problem. We should not have a 10 percent shortfall starting in 2024, but that is a manageable problem. We can make smart, intelligent changes to the Medicare program just like we have done going back to 1965 when it was first enacted.

Again, we have had, in fact, solvency reports and warnings from the trustees that were much more dire in the '70s, in the '80s, in the '90s than the report that we saw 3 weeks ago. There is no reason to scare people and panic people into butchering the Medicare's guaranteed benefit in the name of fiscal solvency for the Medicare program. We can make smart choices. We can make smart changes, but shifting the costs to people 55 and younger is not a solution to the Medicare program. It ends Medicare.

Now, within families with some who are over 55 and some who are under 55, this will create two-tiered coverage. I can report to you of the Courtney Family. I'm 58 years old, so purportedly, I would get the old- fashioned benefit under the Ryan plan, but my wife, Audrey, who is a nurse practitioner--she is 51--will get the loser benefit. She is going to have to start dishing out close to $200,000 in additional costs for her retirement under this plan.

So you've got two-tiered coverage even within families under the proposal that we have with the Ryan plan. We can do better as a great Nation to guarantee coverage--with a reasonable package that is smart and efficient to solve the Medicare program. We don't need the Ryan plan, which will shift costs to patients and families in an unfair fashion.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, as someone who also voted against the Wall Street bailout.

I, however, would certainly disagree with the conclusion that speculation is not a factor in the price of oil and certainly the huge swing that we have seen just in the last 6 months in this country. And I would cite ExxonMobil as my validator in terms of that point.

On May 14 in Forbes Magazine, hardly a Democratic left-wing publication, there was a story regarding an interview with Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, who stated that the real price with traditional supply and demand for oil and gas should be roughly between $60 and $70 a barrel, not $115 a barrel, which it was back in mid-May. And this is what the article said: that Mr. Tillerson stated that the reason it's above $100 a barrel is due to the oil majors using futures contracts to lock in current high prices and speculation that is engineered by the high-frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds.

Again, traditional supply and demand, according to ExxonMobil, suggests that the price of oil and gas should be roughly $60 to $70. Well, how will the CFTC bring us back to a market that is actually connected to supply and demand forces as opposed to the market that we have today?

Under Dodd-Frank, what the CFTC was given was the authority to impose position limits on noncommercial interests that have swamped the commodities trading markets of this country since Congress foolishly deregulated the commodities markets back in 2000. Today, the number of noncommercial traders in the commodities markets is twice what it was in 2000 and using virtually no money down, because the margin limits are almost nonexistent. They have basically hijacked this market so that real end-users, the people who depend on futures trading to lock in positions, whether it's airlines or back home in Connecticut whether it's oil delivery guys who are trying to figure out whether they can offer lock-in contracts for next winter, they have been basically driven from this market. In Connecticut today you cannot get a lock-in contract for next winter because of the fact that these traders now have absolutely no confidence in whether or not this market will be in any rational place 6 months or 8 months from now.

So the need for the CFTC to reimpose some reasonable ``appropriate limits,'' which is what the Dodd-Frank bill empowers them to do, is the reason why their staff needs to be put into place so that we can have a market that existed back in the 1990s, our parents' commodities trading market, which was a stable market which was basically for the use of end-users and not for people who were using high-frequency trading, which the CEO of ExxonMobil cited as the cause of the swing in prices that we're seeing.

And let's be clear here, folks. Supporting this budget from the majority is not about being a deficit hawk. Secretary Ray Mabus from the Navy testified before the House Armed Services Committee that every $10-a-barrel increase of oil costs the Navy, in terms of annual fuel costs, $300 million a year. If you look at what the CEO of ExxonMobil says, the Navy right now is overpaying easily on an annualized basis anywhere from $300 million to $500 million a year, and that's just one branch of the military. The Air Force uses a greater amount of fossil fuels of oil and gas than the Navy does.

So if you are truly a deficit hawk, if you really want to make sure that the Pentagon, which is going to be going through some gut- wrenching decisions about whether or not to provide for the Warfighter in this country and protect weapons platforms that we need to defend this country, then we need a high-functioning CFTC to make sure that the Pentagon as well as the rest of the government at the State and local level are not overpaying for gas and oil.

The taxpayer has a huge stake in making sure that this agency, the CFTC, has adequate funds to do its job because the savings to not just consumers and small businesses but the savings to the taxpayers will be in the billions and billions of dollars. It far exceeds any of the claimed savings that this budget seeks to obtain through the

cuts, through the unbelievably shortsighted cuts to the CFTC in terms of being able to do its job.

We should oppose this budget. We should support this amendment which is on the floor of this House.

No, I will not yield.

Not only small businesses and consumers but the taxpayer needs us to act to make sure that we have a rational oil trading market that is tied to real traditional supply and demand, which the CEO of ExxonMobil has told us is overpriced today to at least $20 to $30 a barrel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Frank Gulluni on being honored with the Tom Ahlers Systems Building Award presented by the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals on May 17, 2011.

For 49 years, Frank has played a key role in the workforce development and educational community, touching the lives of countless students. In his position at Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, Connecticut, he has been a leading force in preparing and training students for careers in our manufacturing sector. And, using his unique experience on the front lines of education, he has been a driver in our community towards finding unique ways to connect the needs of our manufacturing sector with the skills of our students.

Since 2007, I have been proud to work with Frank in advancing his goals of investing in our nation's manufacturing capabilities, helping those who have lost their jobs re-train for new careers, and lay the ground work for a workforce highly skilled in advanced manufacturing of alternate energy technologies and medical devices.

With his leadership guiding the way, Frank and I worked to successfully secure critical funding to expand Asnuntuck's Manufacturing Technology Center (MTC). Thanks to this initiative, new equipment and training services were developed to ensure that the MTC continues to keep pace with the emerging needs of his students and the manufacturing skills they need to fill the jobs of today--and tomorrow.

I have been so impressed and excited with Frank's results. Thanks in large part to Frank's efforts, Asnuntuck Community College has secured a 90% job placement rate for its students. When I visited the MTC last November, I heard first-hand from the students that the newly expanded center allow the program to continue to grow and expand to allow more services to students enrolled both at the college and those in local K- 12 schools that partner with Asnuntuck. I also heard graduates of the program are found to be earning 40% more than their counterparts in all other industries.

Mr. Speaker, simply put Frank is someone who ``gets it.'' When so many simply lament the decline of American manufacturing and the skills mismatch between the training of current workers and the needs of industry, Frank has taken action. He is a passionate believer in manufacturing and education. He truly understands the unique struggles of our laid off and dislocated workers as they seek to transition to new careers. He has built the kinds of partnerships with industries that has ensured that his students on to rewarding and meaningful careers in furthering our manufacturing sector. And, Frank has been a true leader in underscoring the unique value that our community colleges play in training the workforce of the future that will be the backbone of our nation's economy.

Connecticut, New England, and our nation are no doubt better off thanks to Frank's tireless work. For that, I urge all my colleagues to join me in honoring Frank for winning the Tom Ahlers Systems Building Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rushed, hyper- partisan process that we are watching today on a very serious issue of war resolution. It is absolutely a given that Congress has a role to play in terms of the President's action that it should be scrutinized and that we should have the opportunity to weigh in on it. Our Armed Services Committee has been meeting on a regular basis, holding administration officials' feet to the fire on those very questions. We had a hearing yesterday.

The fact of the matter is, though, just because Congress has the right to weigh in doesn't mean that we should pass a resolution for resolution sake. The batting average of Congress in terms of rushed resolutions, frankly, folks, is not very good. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was rushed through the Congress, and we know now today that historians have uncovered the fact that misinformation was presented to the Congress. The Iraq War Resolution in 2002 was rushed through this Congress with bad information.

And we are now seeing today language which was drafted literally overnight being presented to the Members of this body and being asked to weigh in in a deliberative fashion. This is a polemic we are voting on. This is not a carefully balanced, bipartisan process which the people of this country and the people who wear the uniform of this country deserve.

If you read the statement of policy, it is devoid of any of the lead- up to the President's decision which included a resolution by the Arab League on March 12 to impose a no-fly zone; the U.N. Security Council on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone; and on March 1, the United States Senate voted unanimously, not 51 percent, not 81 percent, not 91 percent, 100 percent in support of a no-fly zone, a Republican and Democratic bipartisan resolution calling on the President to do exactly what he is doing today.

Now, again, there is no question, 70 days is a long time.

It is longer than certainly it was originally presented to

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rear Admiral J. Scott Burhoe, the 39th Superintendent of the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. Admiral Burhoe will retire from the Coast Guard after more than three decades of service to our Nation.

He considered his position at the Academy to be his dream job, and served as the first non-Academy graduate to lead the school in at least a hundred years. Admiral Burhoe has a strong passion for higher education. Burhoe stated on several occasions that being Superintendent of the Academy is ``the only job he wanted in the Coast Guard''. As Superintendent, he was well regarded by both the cadets and staff as being an open, honest, and caring leader with a strong vision for our Nation's ``best kept secret'' in higher education.

During his tenure he raised the Academy to the number one baccalaureate college in the North as ranked by U.S. News and World Report and the school had five Fulbright and three Truman scholars. He oversaw an increase in minority admissions, growing from 12 percent minority representation at the Academy in 2008 to 24 percent in 2010. As important, he stressed the critical need for the academy to be a part of the greater New London and southeastern Connecticut communities--and under his command, cadets could be found volunteering to help residents with their taxes, cleaning up the Long Island Sound, and mentoring children in local schools.

In discussing his next steps, Burhoe told the New London Day that ``education is the key to moving the country forward, and I want to continue to be involved in it.'' It is fitting, then, that after he is relieved of command, Burhoe will serve as the 10th President of Fork Union Military Academy in Fork Union, Virginia, a college prepatory and military boarding school for young men founded in 1898.

Scott Burhoe was a valuable asset to the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard Academy, the New London community and our Nation. He began his tenure at the Academy at a difficult time in the school's history, but worked tirelessly to instill a culture of character and integrity in the young cadets that will serve as the leaders of our Nation's Coast Guard long into the future. He has left his mark on thousands of cadets and played an integral part in shaping the next generation of Coast Guard officers. His passion for the service and the training of our Nation's future leaders will be missed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in praising Admiral J. Scott Burhoe's commitment to higher education and the accomplishments of this remarkable leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chuck Appleby of Waterford, Connecticut upon his retirement as the President and Business Manager of the Central and Eastern Connecticut Carpenter's Union Local #24.

For 31 years, Chuck has been an active member of Local 24, the last 11 of which he has served as the President and Business Manager. In communities across Connecticut, Chuck has led the fight for fair wages, good jobs and equal treatment for his fellow carpenters and those in the labor fight. Chuck also served in leadership positions for the Southeast Connecticut Labor Council and the New England Regional Council of Carpenters Executive Board.

Chuck is also an active member of his community. From the Gemma Moran food bank to Three Rivers Community College to the Fallen Veterans Foundation and the Ocean Beach Boardwalk rehabilitation project, Chuck has volunteered his time, his talents, and his treasure to make a difference in the region.

For those who know him, Chuck has always been a staunch Democrat, serving previously on the Waterford Democratic Town Committee and as a delegate to the state Democratic convention. There is not a Democratic office holder or candidate in our region that has not been helped by Chuck in his or her quest for victory on Election Day. As I can attest, he has personally crafted and assembled thousands of campaign signs in every nook and cranny of eastern Connecticut on behalf of the candidates he has supported. Most famously, Chuck has organized pre- debate rallies at the Garde Theater in New London, Connecticut, now a rite of passage for any Democrat whose name appears on the ballot in our state. Chuck's service to working families is based on a much deeper and caring basis than simply party loyalty. I will always remember Chuck's passionate speech at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast that, ``The best social program ever devised is a job--a job with decent wages and benefits!'' As our Nation grapples with the enormous challenges ranging from health care, the deficit, the environment and the strains of family life, Chuck's shrewd wisdom offers a beacon of hope and success.

While Chuck may be retiring from his post as President and Business Manager of Local 24, I imagine his retirement will not be one of quiet solitude or rest. Chuck is the embodiment of the men and women who make up America's labor movement--dedicated, hard working and always looking forward to the next fight to improve the lives of the American middle class. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating my friend and great American Chuck Appleby on a lifetime of service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Kate Swift, a recently deceased Connecticut writer who is best known for her tireless work to end sexism in the English language. Kate, a resident of East Haddam, died of abdominal cancer on May 14 at the age of 87.

Born in Yonkers, NY, Kate attended Connecticut College in New London, CT. She graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1944 with a degree in journalism and spent the next two years in the Women's Army Corps serving as an information and education specialist before being honorably discharged. In 1965 she made her way back to Connecticut to enter the news bureau at Yale University's School of Medicine.

She began her writing career in the 1970s with her companion, Casey Miller, also a writer, who spent some of her career working in naval intelligence. While working with Casey to edit materials for a junior high school sex education program, the two noticed the dominance of male pronouns and references to men. They changed the language in the program to give girls a more prominent role and followed up by publishing their first article on the topic of gender-neutral language.

Kate's proposals gained a great deal of traction over time. Newspapers, textbooks, and public speakers continue to avoid sexist language like ``firemen'' and ``stewardess'', instead preferring more gender-neutral references. Articles by Kate and Casey have been published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and New York magazine on a wide variety of topics relating to sexism in language.

Since moving to East Haddam in 1972, Kate, a sharp intellect and incredibly talented writer, simply couldn't sit still. She was an activist heavily invested in women's rights and gay rights. She was a vocal advocate for Connecticut's marriage equality legislation and worked hard to help bring about its passage into law. She served on the Council of the Rathbun Free Memorial Library, the first Town Charter Commission, as well as the committee of the Connecticut Trails Council of Girl Scouts, and the East Haddam Democratic Town Committee for seventeen years. She traveled all over the world including to China for the UN's Fourth World Conference on Women.

Kate Swift, through her push to end gender discrimination in the English language and tireless activism, demonstrated that she was a true visionary. She was, in many respects, ahead of her time. Kate left her mark by forever changing how we use language and by fighting hard to root out injustice where she found it in the world. I ask my colleagues to join me in praising the efforts and honoring the life of this remarkable woman.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Very briefly, I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, which is a smart amendment. It gives the Navy the flexibility it should have to make sure that it gets the best deal for the taxpayer while at the same time providing a mechanism to preserve the industrial base.

My friend from Virginia and I cochair the Shipbuilding Caucus, which is a bipartisan caucus, one of whose main goals is to strengthen and preserve America's shipbuilding industrial base, and that's precisely what this amendment will do. And again, it aligns the construction schedule with the statutory empowerment to the Secretary of Navy to achieve all those goals.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, which, by the way, is a bill that would repeal a provision of the Affordable Care Act that was aimed at trying to strengthen the primary care infrastructure of this country, which is in fact a huge challenge for the Medicare program, but for some reason over the last couple of months or so, Medicare just seems to be the target.

I think it's important for people to remember that in 1965 when Medicare was passed and signed into law on Harry Truman's front porch, only half of America's seniors had health insurance.

Part of it was because of the cost, but part of it was because the insurance companies would not insure that demographic. It was just simply too high a risk to write insurance policies by individual companies for people who, again, because of nature carried the highest degree of risk in terms of illness and disease. Over time, the genius of Medicare, which was to pool risk, to create a guaranteed benefit, to fund it through payroll taxes, to fund it through Medicare part B premiums, demonstrated that we could raise the dignity and quality of life for people over age 65 and in fact extend life expectancy.

But the Republican Party has been targeting this program over and over again. In the 1990s, they came out with Medicare part C, Medicare Plus Choice, which was again giving insurance companies a set payment who promised to provide a more efficient, lower cost product for seniors. And what happened? Insurance companies enrolled millions of seniors in Medicare Plus Choice products. And realizing in a short space of time that they did not in fact have the funds to create a sustainable product, they canceled coverage for seniors all across the country.

I was at hearings in Norwich, Connecticut, in 1998, where seniors who had signed up for these programs suddenly got notification in mid- policy year that the insurance companies changed their minds, and they dropped them like a hot potato. In many instances, seniors who were in the middle of cancer treatments and chronic disease treatments were left high and dry without coverage. So that program failed.

Later, we had Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage was sold on, again, the premise that it would provide coverage for seniors cheaper than regular Medicare. And what in fact happened? The Department of Health and Human Services had to offer insurance companies 120 percent of the baseline costs for Medicare in order to entice insurance companies to participate in the Medicare Advantage program; a ridiculous overpayment, treating unfairly seniors who were in traditional Medicare and paying for Medicare supplemental insurance.

Last year we did something about that unfairness by equalizing the payments to seniors on traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. And today what we have is the Ryan Republican plan, which says you get an $8,000 voucher if you are under age 55, and good luck in terms of trying to find coverage, again, in a market that is going to be very, very careful about not extending actual coverage because of the risk that's attached to it.

Now, the rank unfairness of saying that we are going to create a two- tiered system for people over the age of 55 and people under the age of 55 is obvious even in my own family. I am 58 years old. My wife Audrey, who is a pediatric nurse practitioner, is 51. I get one version of Medicare; she gets stuck with the loser version of Medicare under this proposal. Again, the unfairness of it is so obvious to all families across America. And again, it is one that is why I think the public is turning so quickly against the Republican agenda.

And we are told and we are asked: What's your alternative? Well, look at the trustees' report that came out last week. Look at it. What it said was that the Affordable Care Act in fact extended solvency for the Medicare program by 8 years. We did suffer some reductions, but that was because of the economy. Read the trustees' language. The smart efficiencies which were introduced into the Medicare program through the Affordable Care Act in fact have made the Medicare program healthier.

And if you look at the Ryan Republican budget plan, they took every nickel of those savings from the Affordable Care Act. Even though that caucus demagogued all across the country, campaigning about so-called Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act, well, the Ryan Republican plan incorporated every single one of those changes in the Affordable Care Act.

But at the same time, it took away all the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in terms of helping seniors with prescription drug coverage, annual checkups, cancer screenings, smoking cessation, all of the smart changes which the Affordable Care Act made to provide a better, smarter, more efficient Medicare benefit for seniors.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats do have an alternative. We have a program which we passed last year which, for the first time in decades, extended the solvency of the Medicare program.

Let's not abandon it. Let's preserve the guaranteed benefit for seniors. Let's reject the Ryan Republican Medicare plan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Andrews.

During the full committee markup of the defense authorization bill, you offered, and the committee supported, an amendment which would ``ensure that the Secretary, at no cost to the Federal Government, provide support and allows for the use of such property by the contractor under such contract to conduct research, development, testing, and evaluation of the F136 engine, if such activities are self-funded by the contractor.''

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

I simply would like to reiterate that it is your intention and understanding that there is no government funding provided to the F136 contractors by your amendment in any section of this bill.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate James Dolan, Jr. and the employees of Hi-Rel Products on being named the U.S. Small Business Administration's New England Regional Subcontractor of the Year.

Headquartered in Essex, Connecticut, Hi-Rel products has provided the microelectronics industry with outstanding goods and service for over 41 years. A second generation family owned business, Hi-Rel Products has grown from a home based operation to an industry leader as a supplier of quality, chemically machined stepped lids. With over 100 years of combined experience, Hi-Rel and its employees have been producing high quality metal components since 1973.

Given annually, the New England Regional Subcontractor of the Year award is given to a subcontractor that has served the government and industry with outstanding goods and services. The nominees for the award are evaluated in the areas of overall management, delivery performance, technical capabilities, outstanding results, and six other selection criteria. Having received top marks in each of these areas, Hi Rel Products has proven to be more than deserving of this prestigious award.

Small and family owned businesses like Hi-Rel are vital to the health of our economy. They are the key to our economic recovery and are vital to creating much needed jobs. With 30 high quality manufacturing jobs in Connecticut, Hi-Rel Products is helping to move our economy forward. Mr. Dolan and the entire Hi-Rel family are a true asset to our state and our region and I commend them on receiving this well deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share with the House a headline which was reported in yesterday's Connecticut media, which I believe is going to reverberate all across the country. It reads that, ``As Federal Health Reforms Take Effect, Aetna Proposes Rate Cuts.''

Now, for employers who have been seeing double-digit increases for the last decade, to see a headline that says health insurance premiums are going to be cut probably seems like it must be a typo or there must be some April Fool's headline joke. But the fact of the matter is, as that story indicates, because of the Federal health care reform law, the new premiums which are going to go into effect in September that Aetna is proposing have to be reduced anywhere from 5 percent to 19 percent. For policyholders, the savings with these new premium announcements will be up to $3,500 a year on policies that cost about $14,000 today.

Why is this happening? It is because the health care reform law contains a provision which says that insurers must demonstrate that up to 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars have to be spent on health care. It is called the medical loss ratio rule. And under existing premiums that Aetna is collecting these days, only 54 percent of premium dollars are presently being paid on health care.

Now, again, as someone who was a small employer before I came to Congress in 2007 and paid those double-digit increases year in and year out, what we are seeing now is the fact that there is transparency in terms of how premiums are being handled and that people are now understanding and, in fact, regulators are enforcing a rule which says that when you pay health insurance premiums, not all of it, but the bulk of it has to be spent on health care. And because of this medical loss ratio rule, we saw yesterday that Aetna is proposing to cut health insurance premiums for employers. And this is going to be replicated all across the country over the upcoming year as the Department of Health and Human Services is issuing these rules to State insurance departments for implementation.

Thank goodness for those employers who are now going to be seeing real rate relief that we did not repeal the health care reform law. Thank goodness for those employers who are getting small business tax credits back in the mail today for their IRS filings that they submitted this year that we did not repeal the health care reform law. Thank goodness for all the employers across America who are now participating in the early retiree health insurance reform program, which over half the Fortune 500 companies in America have signed up for as a way of moderating early retiree health insurance costs so that they can encourage employees 55 and up to take retirement, opening up opportunities for younger workers in this country, which we desperately need, looking at graduating classes that are facing daunting employment prospects.

The fact of the matter is the health care reform law in terms of small business tax credits, real rate cut relief, early retiree programs that help employment-based health benefits is now rippling through the system and providing help for thousands and thousands of employers all across this country.

We know now that the health care reform law is helping almost 1 million young Americans between the ages of 21 and 26 stay on their parents' health insurance plan.

I was with a student up at the University of Connecticut the other day. His sister was months away from graduating from NYU when she was diagnosed with a rare nerve disorder. And thank goodness for the health insurance reform law that she was able to stay on her parents' health care plan. Now she is receiving lifesaving treatments that are going to allow her to attend law school starting next year.

For seniors we are seeing the new Medicare provisions that will close the doughnut hole, that will provide preventive services like annual checkups, cancer screenings that are now covered 100 percent by the Medicare program as a direct result of the health care reform law. These benefits are now flowing through the system with a bill that was fiscally responsible and that CBO scored as a net saver to America's budget deficit.

Again, I want to make sure people see this headline that employer- based premiums are going down because of the health care reform law provisions that will protect employers and individuals who buy health insurance, so that their premium dollar is actually going to be spent on health care and not on excessive administrative costs and bonuses for people in the insurance industry.

Again, I come from Connecticut. We are proud of the insurance industry. My dad worked as an insurance company lawyer his whole lifetime and sent me to college because of that.

The fact of the matter is these rules are something that the insurance industry can coexist with, they can make a health profit, they can grow their business, but it will stabilize the market so that people are not going to be forced to abandon coverage for their workers and for themselves because of the skyrocketing double-digit increases that we have been experiencing as a Nation for far too long. We have relief in sight, and this headline verifies that.

Let's preserve these protections and make sure that our employers and individuals have access to affordable health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dennis Popp, who is stepping down after 12 years of distinguished service as Mayor of the city of Groton, Connecticut.

Dennis began his career at the submarine maker Electric Boat, where he worked as a pipe welder for 3 years before being promoted to supervisor for another 20 years. Dennis capped his career at EB by serving as a draftsman for his final 3 years.

Dennis took his breadth of experience at building and supervising the production of some of the world's most advanced machines and translated his skill set to the world of politics and governance. Just as I fell short in my first effort in running for Congress, Dennis also just missed in his first effort to win the Mayor's office in Groton. But with determination honed like the steel of Electric Boat, Dennis went back at it again and won the election for Mayor of the city of Groton in 1999.

Immediately upon taking the reins of city government, Mayor Popp worked to repair city relations with neighboring towns, which had frayed in recent years. Elevating the city's leadership in regional issues, Dennis held positions of Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Southeastern Council of Governments throughout his tenure.

Mayor Popp will be remembered most of all by his constituents for his tireless efforts to improve the quality of life for the city he loves. Dennis kept taxes level for 12 years and decreased the mill rate while improving city services. Mayor Popp led Groton Utilities' expansion into telecommunications, television, and internet service while strengthening the local community with responsive, neighborhood customer service.

Dennis went on to win reelection five times, running unopposed on several occasions as a testament to his support from residents across the city and from both political parties. His record of leadership for his city will be remembered years after he leaves office and includes expanding regional water sales and revenue for the city; resuscitating the summer recreation program at West Side; leading an expansion of the Pequot Health Center; improving public safety through increased firefighter positions; acquiring additional watershed land to protect the water supply; installing barriers on 1-95 over the reservoir to protect water quality; and supporting the installation of three flagpoles at Fort Griswold Battlefield Park.

Dennis has advocated tirelessly for the needs of Groton, and I have valued his counsel as I prioritized the city's requests in my work in Congress. I have been proud to collaborate with Mayor Popp in delivering Federal

support for fire department equipment, Justice Department support for police hiring and crime prevention, and new, critical investments to strengthen the position of the subase for the future.

Even outside of his elected office, Dennis has served as a pillar in the Groton community. Dennis will continue to be active with the local Eagle Scout program, at the Bill Library, in helping U.S. Subvets Groton Base, and in his local church.

Groton will not be the same after Mayor Popp's exit, but the city can look fondly back on the leadership of its favorite ``Popp Daddy.'' I know that his wife Karen will welcome this retirement as an opportunity to spend more time together and open up a new chapter in their lives. I also know that our friendship will endure even after Dennis leaves office. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting a true man of Groton and for Groton--Dennis Popp.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kalervo ``Kavi'' Ruuskanen of Canterbury, Connecticut in recognition of his 50 years of dedicated service with the Canterbury Volunteer Fire Department.

In 1960, a young Kalervo Ruuskanen helped friends and neighbors extinguish a brush fire. He impressed the local emergency officials so much that they asked him to join the department. Now 50 years later, Mr. Ruuskanen is the first non-charter member of the Canterbury Volunteer Fire Department to have reached the 50-year milestone. This accomplishment is a testament both to his skill as a first responder and his commitment to serving his fellow man.

Not only has he been with the Canterbury Volunteer Fire Department for 50 years, he has also worked as an emergency medical technician, and currently serves as a Constable of Canterbury and volunteers as a fire policeman. In small towns across eastern Connecticut where we rely on volunteers to protect our homes, our businesses and our way of life, men and women like Kalervo Ruuskanen provide a vital service by ensuring our safety.

As the duly elected Representative of the Second Congressional District of Connecticut, I ask that my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in extending hearty congratulations and warm thanks to Mr. Ruuskanen for his dedication and selfless service to the people of Canterbury, Connecticut.

Mr Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing and honor the life of Deacon Maurice Joseph Walsh of Niantic, Connecticut. Deacon Walsh passed away on April 21, 2011 surrounded by his family at his home.

Maurice, or Moe as he was known to friends, lived a life replete with service to his country, church, and community. Ordained in the first Permanent Diaconate class in New England by Archbishop John F. Whealon, he served several parishes including the St. Agnes Parish in Niantic. He was a member of the 745th AAA Gun Battalion of West Hartford's U.S. Army Reserves, where he achieved the rank of Sergeant.

A student of banking at The University of Chicago and Williams College, Maurice worked at the Connecticut Bank and Trust Company for 35 years and eventually went on to start a family businesses with his sons--Maurice J. Walsh and Sons Real Estate Appraisals. Successful and industrious in his profession, he always found time to give back to a variety of causes. He was an active member of the Tinker Turner American Legion Post 128, Catholic Inter-Racial Council, and was a 4th Degree Knight of Columbus.

When he finally retired from the family business, Maurice saw it as an opportunity to give more. He took on a larger role as a Permanent Deacon and continued his tradition of broad, community-oriented service. He was well known for regular trips to Niantic's Bridebrook Rehabilitation Center where he and a group of volunteers he assembled would spend time with and provide spiritual guidance to its residents.

People like Deacon Walsh lived in the service of others. From a relatively young age, he went to great lengths to provide comfort and guidance to people in need of personal, civic, and spiritual help and continued this service through the age of 80. His impact in eastern Connecticut is unquantifiable. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Walsh family. He leaves behind his three sons Damien, Jeffrey, and Daniel as well as his loving wife Claire. Maurice will be dearly missed by his family, friends, and the countless people he served throughout his life.