Misinformation and Deception: Enough is Enough

Join Congressman Joe Courtney in calling for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.
Click here to sign the petition.

The Day: A Freshman with Chops

Editorial

Funding aimed at ramping up submarine production to two ships per year sooner than the current 2012 target date has gained approval from the House Appropriations Committee, a key victory that significantly improves chances of the funding gaining final approval.

Submarine warfare experts have argued that national security could be jeopardized if the current one-submarine-per-year construction schedule is not ramped up. Increasing submarine production would also be good news for Electric Boat and the local economy.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, played a vital role in fighting for the funding. During the 2006 campaign, Rep. Courtney's opponent tried to make the case that the Democrat, if elected, would not have the political chops to protect the state's submarine industry. He has proved that argument was wrong.

He persuaded the House leadership to give him a seat on the House Armed Services Committee, a plum assignment for a freshman lawmaker, and within that committee he serves on the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and the Military Readiness subcommittees. Those assignments placed him in a position to fight for the increased funding.

In an astute political move, Rep. Courtney sought and gained the support of powerful Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jack Murtha, D-Pa., for increased submarine production.

The $588 million approved by the Appropriations Committee is now part of the 2008 National Defense Authorization spending bill and would be used for the advanced procurement of items needed to increase production of the Virginia class. If adopted into law, the authorization could lead to two-submarines-per-year production as soon as 2009.

The funding is far from assured, however. It still has to survive the appropriations process and gain full House approval. It would also have to be accepted by the Senate, where Connecticut's two veteran senators, Christopher J. Dodd and Joe Lieberman, would be responsible for attracting the necessary votes.

The current slow pace of construction threatens the continued erosion of the expert work force needed to build submarines. The one-submarine approach could also lead to the submarine force dropping to 40 ships, or less, sometime in the next decade, a number that could imperil national security.

Submarines, with their intelligence-gathering capability and the ability to stealthily deliver special operation forces where needed, can play a vital role in dealing with the asymmetric nature of the terrorism conflict. They are also a key component to any conventional war planning.

Increased production deserves congressional support.

Editorial, The Day, July 27, 2007

Norwich Bulletin: House Panel OKs Buying 2 Subs a Year

Groton- Citing the Virginia class submarine program as "one of the few Navy shipbuilding programs that appear to be on track," the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee Wednesday approved a measure to provide the funding to increase submarine production from one to two per year.

"That's the best news we've heard in a very long time," said Ken DelaCruz, president of the Metal Trades Council at Electric Boat, the umbrella union representing the shipyard's waterfront workers. "We've just been scraping by with one ship per year. There's been a lot of talk about increasing production. It's nice to see some progress being made."

The House 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill, which still needs full House approval, provides $588 million for the advance procurement of parts to begin construction of two boats per year. It's anticipated the actual construction could begin as early as fall 2009.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, and Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chairman Jack Murtha, D-Pa., said Wednesday the rest of the funding to build the $2 billion sub will be included in next year's bill.

"I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be there for '09," Murtha said in a teleconference call Wednesday with Courtney.

"I would have liked to have seen it in 2008, but I think 2009 is doable," said retired Groton businessman Bud Fay, who has led a grassroots effort to lobby Congress on the issue.

EB and Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia share the submarine building contract, alternating annually on the lead construction of each new sub. In the past, the Navy has resisted efforts to speed up the shipbuilding program. It has maintained the price would have to be lowered from $2.6 billion to $2 billion per submarine before two subs per year was feasible.

EB President John Casey believes that can be achieved with the increase in construction to two per year.

"The Appropriations Committee's vote is an important step forward in increasing submarine production to two per year and meeting the chief of naval operations' goal to reduce the price of the Virginia Class ships," Casey said Wednesday. "The Virginia Class submarines have proven to be exceptionally capable, and the Navy has said it needs more of them. This is good news for Electric Boat, the Navy and the nation."

EB job cuts

In recent years, EB has been forced to lay off or furlough workers because of a lack of work at the shipyard.

Courtney has led the effort this year in the House to expedite submarine construction, citing the potential threat to national security if that industrial base and the highly skilled work force were to continue to erode.

"The committee's strong support today is a testament to the skill and dedication of southeastern Connecticut's work force," Courtney said. "They have made enormous strides in streamlining the submarine construction process and delivering subs on time and on budget. The employees of Electric Boat have given our nation a shipbuilding program that we can all be proud of."

A good part of Courtney's success came from winning Murtha's support, which came when Murtha visited EB in April.

"I recognized that the Navy is falling far short of the modernization that it needed," Murtha said. "But the Navy didn't think it could afford it. I believe it's absolutely essential for the Navy and the nation."

In addition to Murtha's support, Courtney credited state and local community leaders.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has lobbied Congress to support increasing construction, applauded the committee's actions.

"These funds will enable us to maintain the technological advantage we currently enjoy -- an advantage which could be eroded if we fail to increase production to two submarines a year," Rell said Wednesday in a statement released by her office.

Maintaining jobs at EB is a critical component to the state's economy, particularly since high-paying manufacturing jobs have declined dramatically through the years, replaced with lower-paying service jobs.

"I don't know a lot about the defense aspect of it, but looking at it from an economic side, we need those jobs," said Barry Dobbs of Norwich.

"If it means more jobs, it's a good thing," said Jay Cholewa of Griswold. "EB is a big part of the local economy."

Senate biggest hurdle

The biggest hurdle yet to be faced will be achieving Senate approval. Although the Senate Armed Services Committee has authorized the construction increase, the Senate Appropriations Committee not begun work on its version of a defense spending bill.

"The funding included in the House version of the Defense Appropriations Bill is crucial to providing the best possible national defense," said U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. "It will also allow the skilled workers at Electric Boat to ensure that Connecticut remains the 'submarine center of excellence' in the world. I applaud the work of Congressmen Courtney and the rest of the Connecticut delegation in the House, and I vow to continue to work with Sen. (Christopher J.) Dodd to make sure our colleagues on the Senate side remain committed to this effort."

Ray Hackett, Norwich Bulletin, July 26, 2007

Congressman Courtney's Floor Statement on Iraq

Here's a video of Congressman Courtney's floor statement on Iraq from July 12, 2007:

Westerly Sun: "Rep. Courtney right to try to force VA’s hand in releasing vets’ info to the states"

It would be nice if wounded Iraq War veterans and their families didn't need an act of Congress to get the federal and state veterans' agencies on the same page when it comes to providing them with the care and benefits they've earned.

The sad fact is, they do. Connecticut officials have taken the lead in fighting the federal government's abject refusal to even notify state veterans' agencies when wounded service personnel are returning home. And in that vein, Connecticut's 2nd District Congressman, Joe Courtney, D­ - Vernon, deserves kudos for taking a lead role in filing the " Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007", a bill that would require the feds to provide states the information they need to connect with returning war veterans when they head back home.

The issue came to a head last week, when Connecticut Veterans Affairs Commissioner Linda Schwartz told a presi­dential panel that the federal government's Veterans' Administration simply must begin sharing more information about wounded soldiers returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, so that states can do a better job helping them.

Schwartz noted that the states – all of the states, though Connecticut has stepped to the forefront – are not asking for money to fund any veterans' services. They're only asking that the VA notify state veterans' service providers when a wounded service person is being released from federal VA care and headed for home. The issue applies to injured serv­ice members who are still listed on active duty, and those who have been discharged with veterans' status and are thus eligible for a variety of benefits.

"Our question is, why can't we, the states, be considered partners?" Schwartz said. That indeed is a very good question.

Federal officials will tell you that it's not that simple – that federal VA medical facilities are bound by national health­privacy laws from making any such information public unless given express consent to do so by the patients and/ or their families. But let's face it: as they're recovering from war wounds, the last thing on the minds of wounded veterans may be whether their federal caregivers should notify state veterans' service agencies when they're returning home.

VA officials have offered to notify the state if a " severely disabled" Connecticut soldier was returning home, Schwartz said. But that leaves out the vast majority of injured service members, she noted – and it leaves questions as to precisely what the VA means by " severely disabled."

Schwartz also noted that the state is not asking for what might be termed " privileged information" regarding the veterans' wounds. The state simply wants to be able to get the name, the home address, and a time when a soldier is expect­ed home. That would hardly seem to violate privacy statutes, but the VA continues to hold firm.

At its core, this seems little more than a turf war between the VA and the state veterans' service agencies. And it's a bureaucratic battle that leaves those returning from a very real war in the middle. That's a shame.

There's no reason why a federal agency and state groups all seeking to provide care for our returning veterans should have to be told to communicate and work as partners. But, in this scenario, it seems that's the case.

Given that, Courtney is right to try to legislatively force the VA's hand. All of our returning wounded veterans deserve the best in care and services – without any red tape blocking that path.