JI: NFL relents: Giants-Patriots game will air everywhere Saturday

By Matt Buckler, Journal Inquirer, 12/26/2007

Football fans received a late Christmas present today when the NFL Network called a reverse.

Saturday's game between the undefeated New England Patriots and the New York Giants will be carried on over-the-air free televison -- on NBC and CBS affiliates across the country, including WFSB-TV3 and WVIT-TV30 in Connecticut.

Orginally the game was scheduled to be carried exclusively on the NFL Network, a cable channel that reaches only 40 percent of the country. But after being pressured by many members of Congress, the NFL, which owns the NFL Network, decided to change its policy.

"The good guys won," said Connecticut's 2nd District U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat who led the efforts among state lawmakers to move the NFL.

"Keeping the game off broadcast TV would have been a public relations and political nightmare for the NFL," Courtney said today. He added that according to state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the NFL is a federally protected operation with an exemption from anti-trust law that has helped the league make billions from television contracts.

The NFL may have risked its privilege if it upset members of Congress by not allowing the game to be widely broadcast.

"The NFL was playing a very dangerous game by insisting on squeezing every last drop out of its property," Courtney said. "But public opinion woke up the NFL."

The game still will be on NFL Network, and the network's announcers, Bryant Gumble and Cris Collinsworth, will be

calling the game. But the NFL Network will be joined by hundreds of CBS and NBC affiliates that will simulcast the game.

"We have taken this extraordinary step because it is in the best interest of our fans," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said. "What we have seen in the past year is a very strong demand for the NFL Network. We appreciate NBC and CBS delivering the NFL Network telecast to the broad audience that deserves to see this historic game. Our commitment to the NFL Network is stronger than ever."

Courtney said the pressure on the NFL might have reached a boiling point after New England's victory over the Miami Dolphins last Sunday, making an undefeated season for the Patriots a strong possibility.

"After the Patriots won Sunday, public awarness really started to focus," Courtney said. "Letters from other lawmakers started to pile up."

During the past week the NFL was holding firm to its position that the game would be carried only on the NFL Network. In Connecticut the network is available on Cox and Comcast Communications cable franchises, but only on a special digital tier that has been purchased by a small percentage of subscribers.

The situation was worse on other cable systems, where the NFL Network is not being carried at all. That gave TV viewers two options -- purchase the digital tier if they could, or go to a sports bar or the house of a friend who had the NFL Network.

"I was offended by that," Courtney said. "I visited my wife's uncle this week and he's a World War II veteran. What a sad thing that his biggest joy is watching sports on television and he wouldn't be able to watch one of the biggest games of the year. He can't go to a sports bar to watch the game, and the same is true for other elderly and disabled sports fans. The NFL did the right thing."

©Journal Inquirer 2007

Connecticut Post: Lawmakers Urge NFL to Air Patriots Game

Battered by angry lawmakers, the National Football League Thursday offered a glimmer of hope to New England Patriots fans eager to watch next Saturday's potentially historic showdown with the New York Giants from the comfort of their living room recliner.

The NFL had put the game on its own network, effectively cutting off home viewing in southwestern Connecticut because Cablevision does not include the channel in its service.

But after receiving numerous complaints — including a letter from the entire Connecticut Congressional delegation — NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell extended an offer to Time Warner Cable and Cablevision seeking to end a dispute that had kept the NFL Network off their lineups.

The NFL would allow the game to be broadcast beyond the Boston and New York City markets if the cable companies agree to take their disputes to binding, third-party arbitration.

"I am encouraged by the NFL's willingness to begin addressing this issue, but I will only be satisfied with the result when Connecticut's tens of thousands of football fans have access to the game," said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2.

Courtney, who represents eastern Connecticut, led the state delegation's efforts to get the NFL to expand the telecast of the game to fans of both the Patriots and Giants in Connecticut.
In the letter, the delegation urged the NFL to swap the scheduled NBC Sunday night game, featuring the New York Jets and Kansas City Chiefs with the Saturday NFL Network match between the Patriots and Giants.

"This will allow all those interested in Connecticut to view what could be a monumental game," they wrote.

The Patriots could be the first team since 1972 to complete a regular season without a loss should they win this weekend against the Miami Dolphins and defeat the Giants on Dec. 29.

Miami was the last undefeated team, going 17-0 after capturing the Super Bowl VII trophy in Los Angeles when they downed the Washington Redskins. They ended the 1972 regular season with a 14-0 record, including an embarrassing 52-0 victory over New England where starting quarterback Jim Plunkett went 7-19 for 66 yards, no touchdowns and two interceptions.

Brian McCarthy, a spokesman for Goodell, released a copy of a letter sent to Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt on Thursday proposing that they resolve their impasse in a way that would "put the interest of our fans, and your customers, first."

In the letter, Goodell said the NFL was prepared to immediately enter into a binding arbitration process to determine the price and tier for NFL Network distribution on Time Warner systems.

Should Britt accept, Goodell said the NFL would provide the cable company with the NFL Network immediately so that customers could view the Patriots final game of the regular season.

McCarthy said that the same offer has been extended to Cablevision. A spokesman for Cablevision did not return a call Thursday seeking comment.

The offer, he said, was extended after the NFL received a number of complaints from lawmakers — including a letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., questioning the league's justification for restricting distribution of game programming.

The two senators urged Goodell to take prompt action to make games more broadly available than solely on the NFL Network.

"The NFL appears to be moving incrementally closer to limiting distribution of its programming to subscription television," they wrote. "Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to re-examine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the nation's antitrust laws."

The letter sent by the Connecticut delegation included a similar threat, calling it a "troubling development" that the Patriots game against the Giants would not be broadcast in the state.

"When the NFL testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in November 2006, the league touted its policy of offering free, over-the-air broadcasting of NFL games. Since Congress passed the Sports Broadcasting Act for that purpose, watching NFL games has become a weekly ritual for millions of Americans each fall. Conversely, a policy that relies on pay television risks alienating the fans who have made the NFL so successful," they wrote.

Connecticut Post, 12/20/07, Peter Urban

The Day- Courtney: Energy Trading Needs Oversight

Bill Would Rein In Speculators In Futures Markets Blamed For Run-Up In Oil Prices

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney on Wednesday urged congressional support for legislation that would tighten regulation over energy-futures trading, which he said is being manipulated by savvy investors reaping huge profits from soaring oil prices.

The Second District congressman said he is joining forces with Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak to co-sponsor legislation in January called the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices act that would extend regulatory oversight over all trading of energy investments — from natural gas to crude oil — on the commodities markets.

The congressmen estimated that about $20 per barrel of crude oil is inflated because of manipulative trading now occurring in the energy futures markets.

“People do not mind paying for a product if they feel they're getting a fair price,” said Courtney, adding that current market conditions don't warrant the roughly 30 percent spike in energy prices this year.

The futures markets are basically giant exchanges where contracts are bought and sold that determine the future price for a wide variety of commodities, from grain and livestock to gasoline and heating oil.

Currently, the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, trades huge amounts of energy futures daily that determine future pricing for gasoline, residential heating oil and natural gas. The exchange is regulated by the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission, created by Congress in 1975 to prevent manipulation and fraud among the commodities markets.

But a growing number of energy trades are being done on an “over the counter” basis without any regulatory oversight. Courtney and Stupak said they are co-sponsoring the so-called PUMP act because of the growing number of these “dark market” trades — devoid of any regulatory oversight — that they believe are largely responsible for the increase in energy prices this year.

Their legislation would provide more regulatory oversight of all energy-related commodities trading, provide for quicker enforcement of manipulative or fraudulent trading and levy stiffer penalties in the case of market manipulation.

In addition, Courtney said greater oversight would make the energy traders “accountable to real market conditions, not speculation.”

Courtney said the public is “dumbfounded by the increase in (energy) prices over the past four or five months unconnected to market conditions.” He said rising energy prices were a major concern at a recent town hall-style meeting he held in Waterford. “People were literally waving their heating oil bills in the air asking what Congress was going to do about,” Courtney said.

The Day, Anthony Cronin, Business, 12/20/07

New York Times: Bush to Sign Bill to Boost Auto Mileage

President Bush, who has said he doesn't believe the government should set arbitrary automobile mileage standards, is signing into law a requirement that motor vehicles meet an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Congress sent an energy bill to the White House late Tuesday -- delivering it in a gas-hybrid sedan -- that increases the federal auto mileage requirement for the first time in 32 years and also requires a huge increase in the use of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline.

The measure passed by veto-proof majorities in both houses. The House passed the bill 314-100, with 95 Republicans joining Democrats in support of the legislation, after the Senate approved it last week 86-8.

The White House immediately announced that Bush would sign the measure Wednesday morning at a ceremony at the Energy Department.

''This is a choice between yesterday and tomorrow'' on energy policy, declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who had personally conducted the sometimes testy negotiations that led to the bill's approval in the House.

Democrats said the legislation represents a turn away from fossil fuels to using more renewable energy sources and put greater emphasis on conservation.

It increases energy efficiency ''from light bulbs to light trucks,'' said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a longtime protector of the auto industry who was key to a compromise on vehicle efficiency increases.

The bill requires the industry to achieve an average of 35 miles per gallon for all vehicles, including SUVs and small trucks, by 2020, about a 10 mpg increase from what these vehicles get today. While all vehicles from small sedans to large SUVS must make some improvement in fuel economy, the required improvements may vary among vehicle classes as long as the overall industry average is 35 mpg.

The bill also calls for:
-- A sixfold increase in ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a boon to farmers. Of that, 21 billion gallons will have to be from feedstock other than corn such as prairie grasses or wood chips.

-- Improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs.

-- Energy efficiency improvements in federal building and new efficiency standards for construction of new commercial buildings with an aim that they produce as much electricity as they use.

The new lighting standards alone are projected to lower consumers' annual electricity bills by $13 billion in 2020, remove the need for 60 mid-size power plants and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, by 100 million tons a year, said the advocacy group Alliance to Save Energy.

Democrats said the fuel economy requirements will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs and reduce oil demand by 1.1 million barrels a day when the fuel-stingy vehicles are widely on the road.

The overall bill including more ethanol use and various efficiency requirements and incentives, will cut U.S. oil demand by 4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than twice the current daily imports from the volatile Persian Gulf, Democrats said.

But some Republicans complained the legislation fails to address the need for more domestic production of fossil fuels, especially oil and natural gas.

''What we have here is a mandatory conservation bill,'' said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. He argued that the auto fuel efficiency requirements and the huge increase in ethanol use may not prove to be technologically or economically possible.

Earlier this year, Bush announced his own plan, which he said was aimed at cutting U.S. gasoline use by 20 percent in 10 years. Like the legislation passed by Congress, the president's plan included a sharp increase in ethanol use. It also urged Congress to overhaul fuel economy rules to give auto companies more flexibility, some of the provisions lawmakers adopted.

But Bush -- until now -- remained strongly opposed to any arbitrary, numerical increase in auto fuel efficiency.
--------
New York Times, AP, 12/19/07

The Day: 93,600 In Region May Dodge AMT Bullet

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 226-193 Wednesday for a temporary tax-code fix that would save millions of middle-class taxpayers, including about 93,600 in southeastern Connecticut, more than $50 billion.

The tax-code amendment, favored by Democrats including U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney of the 2nd District, as well as most Republicans, would alter how the Alternative Minimum Tax is calculated. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, which previously passed a version of the so-called AMT patch but did not include a way to pay for it.

“All this points out that tax reform is going to be on the horizon in this country as we elect a new president,” Courtney said in a phone interview from Washington. “We can't keep going on like this.”

House Democrats have called for fixing the AMT with a pay-as-you-go plan that includes offsets that will raise levies on multinational corporations and the wealthy seeking tax shelters. Republicans have said that no offset is necessary — an argument that Democrats say is tantamount to allowing the federal debt of more than $9 trillion to balloon even more.

Meanwhile, the Internal Revenue Service has said delays in implementing a minimum-tax fix likely will delay the processing of returns and refund checks.

Congress passed the AMT in the 1960s after an uproar over the number of corporations and wealthy individuals — including 21 millionaires — who used a string of deductions to avoid paying any federal taxes. But now the tax has begun to affect middle-class people because the income triggers were never changed to account for inflation.

The National Taxpayers Union, which lobbies for lower taxes across the board and has supported various tax simplification efforts, said Wednesday that it never favored the AMT and has argued for its repeal. It favors efforts to reduce the burden on middle-class taxpayers but not at the expense of other taxpayers.

“There are other places where spending could be cut without shifting the burden to individuals or corporations,” said Natasha Altamirano, communications manager for the taxpayers' group.
The AMT kicks in for individuals with annual incomes in the $115,000 range, and for married couples who earn about $150,000, though people with lower incomes can be affected if they have big deductions.

The Tax Policy Institute calculates that without a change in the tax law, 39 million people will be paying the AMT by 2017. This compares to the 4 million taxpayers affected last year and the 20,000 who originally had to pay the tax in 1970.

It is estimated that by 2010, nearly half of taxpayers earning from $75,000 to $100,000 would owe the tax if Congress doesn't alter the law. In the same year, more than 80 percent of taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be in the same boat.

Ironically, one factor contributing to more people facing the AMT was the series of Republican tax cuts enacted starting in 2001. The cuts offered higher deductions for people with children, which is why married couples are 15 times more likely to be affected by the minimum tax than singles.

“The tax cuts enacted are starting to hit the rest of the tax code, and are pushing more people into AMT status,” Courtney said.

The average taxpayer who must pay the AMT this year faces nearly $3,000 in extra payments. People from high-tax states like Connecticut are more likely to be affected by the tax because of deductions allowed on federal returns to offset state and local taxes.

Connecticut ranks No. 18 out of 50 states in AMT liability, with nearly 445,000 people affected, but since Connecticut is one of the smaller states by population, the effect here is even greater than the raw numbers might suggest.

The Day, By Lee Howard, 12/13/07

Reminder News: Fire Dept. Gets Grant

Years ago, the Willington Hill Fire Department obtained a 1968 military surplus pickup truck and, in the late 1970s, with members doing most of the work, converted it into a brushfire truck. Roll cage bars were installed, and other features and modifications were made. After many years of good service, the time has come to replace the faithful vehicle with a brushfire truck offering modern fire-fighting capabilities.

“The department was notified yesterday afternoon [Nov. 15] by Congressman Joe Courtney’s office that we have been selected to receive a grant for $118,750 for replacement of our 1968 military surplus brush-fire truck,” said Willington Hill Fire Department Chief Mike Makuch. “We would like to thank his office for their support, as well as their efforts in trying to secure volunteer firefighter tax breaks.”

“Former Deputy Chief Tom Snyder, Firefighter Craig Motola and Willington Fire Department #1 Assistant Chief Stuart Cobb were all instrumental in researching, writing and managing the grant process. Without their hard work, I would not be sharing this good news today.”

The grant-writing project is an example of the spirit of cooperation that exists between the two Willington fire departments. “Stuart Cobb is experienced with grant-writing and even though he is an officer with Willington #1, he was willing to help us out,” said Makuch.

“We are, of course, very excited about this. The $125,000 grant does require matching funds of $6250, which we will be pursuing immediately,” he said. “A new truck will benefit the department by modernizing brushfire fighting capabilities. It will include safety features, such as a modern braking system and cab functions, such as high output heat and defrost systems that are marginal in military surplus vehicles from the 1960s. In addition, this will benefit the town with the improved equipment available for emergencies, and the fact that the cost will mostly be borne by the grant, as opposed to directly by the taxpayers of Willington.”

“The town’s Capitol Improvement Plan has earmarked $60,000 in Fiscal Year 2009-10 for refurbishment work on the current truck and another truck at Willington Hill, so this grant award will further benefit the budget process by releasing some of that funding for other priorities,” Makuch added.

Negotiations for a replacement brushfire truck will soon be underway. “We know what we’re aiming for – a Unimog made by Mercedes. European military units have used this model for decades. We need to keep the size as small as possible, so that fewer trees have to be cut to clear a path for the truck to get to a fire,” Makuch explained. “These trucks have to be constructed of rugged materials for crashing through the brush.”

“The other major benefit of this new truck will be of a regional nature. As this is a somewhat specialized piece of equipment, not every fire station has one, and when a brushfire truck is needed, often more than one is required at a time, he said. “The current truck has been many places in eastern Connecticut as well as central Massachusetts, as part of our mutual aid plan, which has also provided assistance from those areas to Willington in the past. The new brushfire truck will be going to fires in a number of towns. For example, we used the present truck to help fight a large fire in the Palmer, Mass., area in the late 1990s.”

“Congressman Courtney’s office is planning to have more information and maybe a local press event sometime in December,” the chief said.

“These grants are so vital a resource to our first responders because they allow area fire departments to improve services without compromising other local initiatives,” said Courtney in a Nov. 15 press release announcing grants to the Willimantic Fire Department and to Willington Hill Fire Department. “Our firefighters volunteer themselves to protect our communities, and we must do all that we can to return the favor.”

Reminder News, By Phyllis Royx

Hartford Courant: Post Office to be Renamed for Marine

A local post office will be named in honor of Marine Cpl. Stephen R. Bixler, a Suffield native who was killed in Iraq last year, now that the White House has given final approval.

A bill proposing to dedicate the Suffield Post Office at 235 Mountain Road in honor of Bixler has been signed into law by President Bush, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney said Monday.

Courtney, who proposed the bill in August, said a dedication ceremony is being planned at the post office.

"It's gratifying that we've completed the journey," said Courtney, who received nearly 200 letters from residents and government officials in support of the bill during a monthlong public comment period. "It's something the people of Suffield should get the biggest amount of credit for. It was their idea, and their strong grass-roots support is what really pushed this all the way to the president."

The bill, H.R. 3325, which was signed into law Friday, is believed to be the first to rename a Connecticut post office after a fallen soldier. It received the unanimous support of Connecticut's congressional delegation. Courtney also received letters of support from high-ranking state and federal officials, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Marine Lt. Col. James M. Bright.

Bright, who commanded the battalion that Bixler belonged to, described him in a letter as a "vibrant, active man" and a "devoted soldier with strength and character and self-assurance."

"He died fearlessly, leading and willingly, sacrificing his own safety for those around him," Bright said in his letter, which was read on the House floor.

The designation holds a greater and more personal significance for Bixler's family — his father, Richard Bixler, is a letter carrier in East Windsor. Richard Bixler drives by the post office, less than a mile away from his family's home, every day on his way to work.

"It's going to make me feel very proud that he was remembered this way," he said. "We're just thankful for everybody that was able to write letters of support and to Congressman Courtney."

Hartford Courant, 12/4/07, By Lynn Doan