Courtney for Congess Latest News

President Obama's 2011 Budget to Expand Submarine Program

2010-02-02T08:37:00.000-08:00

Courtney: Submarine funding included in Obama's budget
Norwich Bulletin
By MICHAEL GANNON
February 1, 2010
President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget request can be taken in “a very positive way” by advocates of the nation’s submarine program, according to U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District.

Speaking on a conference call Monday, Courtney said Obama’s defense appropriations request includes $5.4 billion for the construction and design of the Virginia-class submarine program. It also has an additional $730 million in research and design of the next generation of ballistic missile submarines, which would replace the Ohio class.

“This is something we were looking at very closely in southeastern Connecticut to see the administration’s commitment to the submarine program,” Courtney said.

Both expenditures, if approved by Congress this year, would mean more work for Electric Boat in Groton. Courtney echoed hopes expressed last week by Electric Boat and members of the Metal Trades Union that the projected increase in design work could allow for the retraining and transfer of many of the 434 shipyard workers who will be laid off beginning in April.

Courtney also said the Pentagon’s mandated Quadrennial Defense Review states a need for a fleet of 53 to 55 submarines in the future to carry out all projected tasks. That also would be good news for Electric Boat, as the figure is five to seven more than the 48 called for in 2006. Fiscal year 2011 is the first year the Navy will begin building two Virginias per year, one each at Electric Boat and Newport News, Va.

“Taken together, the need (for construction at Electric Boat) would be sustained well into the 2020s,” Courtney said.

He said that is good policy given both the versatility of the Virginia and strides being taken by China and other nations to augment their sub fleets.

In a statement issued by his office, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., said defense dollars for Connecticut for such items as submarines and jet engines increases the investments in “the vital resources our soldiers, airmen and Marines rely on.”

Robert Hamilton, spokesman for Electric Boat, said it was too early in the process for the company to comment. Representatives from the Metal Trades Council and the Marine Draftsmen’s Association, the two major unions at Electric Boat, could not be reached for comment.

Submarines rate high in Obama budget
The New London Day
By: Jennifer Grogan
February 2, 2010

President Barack Obama released a defense budget Monday that supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine, even while slashing the funding for other weapons programs.

Local submarine supporters have worked for years to increase the submarine production rate from one to two per year.

"This is a budget that a lot of people have been watching closely," U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said Monday. "… Our questions have been answered, and in a positive way."

The Virginia-class submarine program will receive $5.4 billion, if the budget passes, for two submarines in fiscal 2011, for the advanced procurement of submarine components for two submarines in 2012 and in 2013, and for research and development.

Virginia-class submarines provide the Navy "with the capabilities to maintain undersea supremacy in the 21st century," the budget stated.

The Navy's budget documents, also released Monday, say that it will continue to buy two attack submarines per year through fiscal 2015.

About $700 million is included to continue developing a new ballistic-missile submarine to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class, or Trident, submarines. Last year's budget provided $495 million for the program.

Electric Boat is hiring designers and engineers to work on the ballistic-missile submarine design. EB and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia currently build one submarine a year under a teaming agreement.

"In an era when the Department of Defense has to make a lot of tough choices, it's encouraging to see that at the highest levels there is such a strong recognition of the importance of submarines to national security," EB President John P. Casey said in a statement.

The proposed defense budget, $708 billion for fiscal 2011, includes $549 billion to fund basic defense programs, an increase of $18 billion over last year, and $159 billion to support overseas operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Other weapons programs did not get the president's support. The Defense Department proposed concluding production of the C-17 airlift aircraft, delaying the command ship replacement program and canceling the CG(X) cruiser.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a statement that he was making "substantial changes to allocate defense dollars more wisely."

"It's definitely gratifying that in a year when every program is being microscopically examined, we still pass with flying colors," Courtney said.

The administration also issued on Monday its Quadrennial Defense Review report, the latest Pentagon reassessment of the military that shapes policies and programs. It states that there will be between 53 and 55 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines from 2011 to 2015.

The Navy has said in the past that it only needed 48 submarines. Currently there are 53 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines.

The Department of Defense has four priority objectives, according to the report - to prevail in today's wars, to prevent and deter conflict, to prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies, and to preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force.

The report, along with the budget, should bring "long-term stability for the workforce at Electric Boat," Courtney said. The Navy will need two submarines a year from EB and Newport News "well into the 2020s," he added.

Electric Boat notified 434 employees last week that they will be laid off in April. Casey announced the layoffs last month, attributing them largely to the fact that the Navy is only buying one submarine a year and the company does not have enough submarine maintenance and modernization work to keep the employees busy.

Some of the trades personnel the company plans to lay off could possibly be trained to fill some of the design jobs that will be available for the Ohio-class program.

Courtney said he contacted the Navy to see if any of the repair work that is being sent to the Navy shipyards could be diverted to EB, or if any of the affected employees could work at those shipyards temporarily.

"The one-submarine production rate that has hindered the ability of EB to maintain a stable workforce is going to be a thing of the past, with the QDR report today and the financial commitment the administration is making," Courtney said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said submarines "play a vital role in our country's national defense and the administration's commitment to the workers of Connecticut is a testament to the confidence we have in their abilities."

"I hope that these investments as well as the continuing development of the first nuclear missile submarine in decades will help avert layoffs of Electric Boat's hard-working men and women in our state," Dodd said in a statement.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he was "proud that Connecticut workers do so much to keep our nation safe."

Washington Post: A very productive Congress, despite what the approval ratings say

2010-02-01T20:00:00.000-08:00

By Norman Ornstein, Washington Post
Sunday, January 31, 2010; B02

When President Obama urged lawmakers during his State of the Union speech to work with him on "restoring the public trust," he was hardly going out on a limb. The Congress he was addressing is one of the least popular in decades. Barely a quarter of Americans approve of the job it's doing, according to the latest Gallup/USA Today poll, while 58 percent said it was below average or one of the worst ever, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey last month.

It's not hard to find reasons why Americans are down on Capitol Hill, and why President Obama's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent in many polls. A year into the 111th Congress, unemployment remains at 10 percent, and many Americans are struggling to get by -- even as they've watched Congress bail out banks and coddle the same bankers now salivating over massive new bonuses. At the same time, the public has had a front-row seat to the always messy legislative process on health care and other issues, and this past year that process has been messier, more rancorous and more partisan than at any point in modern memory.

There seems to be little to endear citizens to their legislature or to the president trying to influence it. It's too bad, because even with the wrench thrown in by Republican Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, this Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.

The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was far more than an injection of $787 billion in government spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-third of it -- $288 billion -- came in the form of tax cuts, making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable-energy production as well as home-buying and college tuition. The stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy arena of health-information technology, and more than $1 billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health-care treatments.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school districts across the country. There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill. Lawmakers then added to their record by expanding children's health insurance and providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous Congress. Other accomplishments included a law to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights and defense procurement reform.

The House, of course, did much more, including approving a historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health-care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way through the Senate, and even in this political environment it is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It is likely that the package of job-creation programs the president showcased on Wednesday, most of which got through the House last year, will be signed into law early on as well.

Most of this has been accomplished without any support from Republicans in either the House or the Senate -- an especially striking fact, since many of the initiatives of the New Deal and the Great Society, including Social Security and Medicare, attracted significant backing from the minority Republicans.

How did it happen? Democrats, perhaps recalling the disasters of 1994, when they failed to unite behind Bill Clinton's agenda in the face of uniform GOP opposition, came together. Obama's smoother beginning and stronger bonds with congressional leaders also helped.

But even with robust majorities, Democratic leaders deserve great credit for these achievements. Democratic ideologies stretch from the left-wing views of Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Maxine Waters in the House to the conservative approach of Ben Nelson in the Senate and Bobby Bright in the House, with every variation in between. Finding 219 votes for climate-change legislation in the House was nothing short of astonishing; getting all 60 Senate Democrats to support any version of major health-care reform, an equal feat. The White House strategy -- applying pressure quietly while letting congressional leaders find ways to build coalitions -- was critical.

Certainly, the quality of this legislative output is a matter of debate. In fact, some voters, including many independents, are down on Congress precisely because they don't like the accomplishments, which to them smack of too much government intervention and excessive deficits. But I suspect the broader public regards this Congress as committing sins of omission more than commission. Before the State of the Union, the stimulus was never really sold in terms of its substantive measures; it just looked like money thrown at a problem in the usual pork-barrel way. And many Americans, hunkering down in bad times, may not accept the notion of "countercyclical" economic policies, in which the government spends more just when citizens are cutting back.

Most of the specific new policies -- such as energy conservation and protection for public lands -- enjoy solid and broad public support. But many voters discount them simply because they were passed or proposed by unpopular lawmakers. In Massachusetts, people who enthusiastically support their state's health-care system were hostile to the very similar plan passed by Congress. Why? Because it was a product of Congress.

Well before Sen.-elect Brown's Bay State upset, it was clear that a sterling legislative record in the first half of the 111th Congress did not guarantee continuing action in 2010 or beyond. And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60. With Republicans ebullient over the Massachusetts election, the likelihood is that they will feel vindicated in their "just say no" strategy, Obama's leadership lectures notwithstanding.

If the midterm elections in November turn out to be more like 1994, when Democrats got hammered, than 1982, when Republicans suffered a less costly blow, the GOP will probably be emboldened to double down on its opposition to everything, trying to bring the Obama presidency to its knees on the way to 2012. That would mean real gridlock in the face of a serious crisis. Given the precarious coalitions in our otherwise dysfunctional politics, we could go quickly from one of the most productive Congresses in our lifetimes to the most obstructionist.

And voters would probably like that even less.

Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the co-author of "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."

Video: Joe on the Ed Show Opposing Proposed Healthcare Taxes

2010-01-21T19:54:00.000-08:00

Washington Post: Excise tax on 'Cadillac' health-care plans is a bad idea

2010-01-21T19:41:00.000-08:00

By: Allan Sloan
January 12, 2010

The idea of an excise tax on "Cadillac" health-care plans sounds like magic. It would raise almost $150 billion over 10 years to help finance health-care "reform"; it would be paid by employers, insurance companies and "the rich"; it would help "bend the cost curve" in the future; and for all I know, it might help regrow hair and cure warts.

But if you look at the actual workings of the plan, you come away far less impressed.

You discover that more than 80 percent of the money it raises would come from individuals paying higher income, Social Security and Medicare taxes -- not from soulless employers and insurers. You also discover that the biggest portion of the money comes from people who make less than $200,000. That's not exactly rich -- especially not for those of us in high-cost areas on the East and West coasts.

I'm not getting this information from some secret source passing me documents in a parking garage -- it's from an analysis last month by the staff of Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation for Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.). Courtney opposes the tax, but that doesn't affect the numbers because the committee's staff is a well-respected, nonpartisan operation. To see the report, go to http://www.tinyurl.com/courtneyjc.

The tax is projected to raise $149 billion for the 10 years ending in 2019 (on Page 4, for those of you tracking this online). Only $26 billion of this -- less than 20 percent -- would come from payment of the excise tax itself. The rest, more than 80 percent, would come from higher income, Social Security and Medicare taxes on individuals.

If you eyeball the last eight pages of the report -- which are confusingly numbered 1 through 8 -- you see that the biggest number of tax dollars comes from people who earn between $100,000 and $200,000. You also see that the impact on people in the $1 million-plus range -- most of whom probably really are rich -- is relatively trivial.

Okay. Why would employees be paying higher taxes on their income because of an excise tax on health care? I'm glad you asked. Even though the report doesn't answer that question, I will.

Economists at the joint committee and most other places assume -- I'll repeat that: assume -- two things. First, that to avoid this tax, employers will pay less toward health insurance than they otherwise would. Second, that the money employers don't pay on health care will go to employees as higher salaries.

Call me skeptical -- or cynical -- but I find it hard to believe that any employer would pay more to employees if it paid less for health care. I also find it hard to believe that employers can work any harder than they already do to hold down health-care costs. But that's the assumption underlying the idea that the tax will hold down future costs.

I'm sure that the people who believe in the virtues of this tax are acting in good faith. I just think that the real world of health care is different than their theoretical one.

It's possible that companies that pay less in health care would pay more in corporate income taxes because their income would be higher. But given how good companies are at avoiding taxation, who knows?

As an aside, I think (but can't definitively say) that some of the extra taxes would come from employers cutting back or eliminating health-care flexible spending accounts.

FSAs, as they're known, allow workers to set aside pretax income to pay for medical expenses, such as co-pays and over-the-counter drugs, that aren't covered by insurance. But employers, who pay little for FSAs except for administrative costs, would be forced to pay a 40 percent, non-tax-deductible excise tax on part of employees' FSA accounts if a plan's premiums plus FSAs plus other stuff exceed certain thresholds. Employers won't offer FSAs if there's a chance they'd have to pay an excise tax as a result. This would increase workers' taxable incomes.

I'm not sure whether FSAs (which I use to the max) are good public policy. Ditto for medical savings accounts. But if we want to eliminate or trim these accounts, let's have an open discussion, not do it through the back door.

In case you're interested, this tax would not affect me in any serious way. And I'm not a catspaw for organized labor, which is opposing the tax. I just think it discriminates unfairly against people who are more expensive to insure because they're older, live in high-cost areas or both. But if this excise tax can regrow hair . . . I'm willing to take another look.

Coverage of Congressman Courtney's Opposition to Tax on Healthcare Excise Tax

2010-01-08T08:54:00.000-08:00

Rep Joe Courtney: I have 190 Democrats Against the Tax on “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plans

Firedoglake

By: David Dayen

January 6, 2010

On a conference call put together by the Economic Policy Institute, Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) said that he has the signatures of 190 Democrats on a letter opposed to the excise tax on high-end “Cadillac” insurance plans, and that stopping this tax was the “#1 priority” of the House of Representatives as they move to reconcile the House and Senate health care bills.

Courtney actually collected the signatures against the excise tax back in September and October, but he said that in the only caucus of House Democrats before Christmas, the majority of comments from members objected to the tax. He said that the Senate is “leaning hard for their position,” and they have some support from the White House. But judging from Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments, “this is where there’s the most resistance to the Senate plan because she knows this is where the caucus is.”

Courtney believes that the feeling has intensified among House Democrats because of input from constituents at town hall meetings and polling, both public and private. He cited several public polls showing 2-1 opposition to the excise tax, and said that members have conducted their own polling showing the tax to be “politically toxic.” He added that “on policy and political grounds, the House approach is right approach.”

TPMDC reported today that Speaker Pelosi does privately want the excise tax stripped from the final health care bill. This added pressure from Rep. Courtney only adds to the dilemma, as the White House has endorsed the Senate financing structure.

Both Rep. Courtney, EPI policy analysts Larry Mishel and Josh Bivens and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich offered compelling reasons why the House version of financing, featuring a surtax on high-income earners, would be preferable to the excise tax. Courtney noted that, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation study, 27% of family plans would be hit by the tax in its fifth year of operation in 2019, and 22% of individual plans. He termed the indexing of CPI +1% “inadequate,” and believed that, as health insurance premiums go up, the excise tax would turn into “the AMT on steroids.” That’s a reference to the alternative minimum tax, which was originally designed to affect high-income earners who avoided paying taxes through multiple deductions, but which now impacts so many people in the upper-middle class that a patch is offered every year. My guess is that would be how the excise tax would work in practice, making it ineffective as a revenue raiser.

Furthermore, it’s completely unclear that this tax, designed to target insurance plans which are too lavish, would actually meet that goal. Because of the age rating in the Senate bill, where insurance companies would be able to charge three times as much for an older customer than a younger one, the tax would disproportionately hit older Americans. In addition, regional disparities play a major role in driving premium prices, which middle class families cannot control. (There is a 3-year grace period for those regional disparities, but it’s unclear how those costs will be equalized in three years’ time.) “For people to be taxed for these factors has no bearing on good health care policy,” said Rep. Courtney. “I don’t know what they were thinking at the Senate Finance Committee, but it’s a joke.”

Josh Bivens of EPI added that recent studies showed only 4% of the cost of insurance plans can be attributed to the generosity of those plans. “It’s more proper to title it a small business health insurance tax” than a tax on “Cadillac” plans, he said.

There are carve-outs for certain industries, like longshoremen and public safety workers, in the Senate bill, but this shows the impossibility of trying to target plans with offer lavish benefits. Larry Mishel of EPI noted that 75% of all teacher plans would be affected because that profession employs a disproportionate number of older women.

Bivens added than any cost containment from the excise tax would be derived from consumers cutting back on their own health care coverage. And he said that is “not the way to go after the trend in high health care spending… Consumers are not the people to decide what health coverage to squeeze out.” Dr. Reich added that if working families needing health care are forced to cut back, that defeats the entire purpose of the bill. He also said there are far better ways to control costs on health care spending, such as through bargaining to lower down prescription drug costs. He called the excise tax “a blunt instrument” and added, “to put the onus on older workers and small businesses is not only unfair but inefficient,” said Reich.

Reich and Mishel both pushed back on the idea that employers would make up for decreasing their health care costs by increasing wages for employees. “There’s no reason to assume that wage increases will come forth, especially in the current environment, and there’s no reason to suppose that wage increases would equal the amount of coverage foregone,” because that coverage came on pre-tax dollars. Mishel added that health care costs are not a major part of overall compensation packages (about 7%), and the rise in health care spending by employers over the last twenty years would have amounted to just a 0.1% increase in wages annually. “The problem is that workers are not benefiting from productivity growth because employers have the upper hand,” Mishel said. “If health care costs go down, employers won’t raise wages in response.”

Courtney added that the genesis of the excise tax, essentially, was John McCain’s Presidential campaign, which called for the complete elimination of the employer deduction for health care benefits. Despite it being initially a Republican idea, “the GOP won’t give Democrats a free pass for this.” He noted that the Chamber of Commerce is targeting the “tax on benefits” in their main ad against the health care bill.

“When McCain proposed this (in the campaign), the Obama campaign went for his throat. The paid media they put into this issue was huge. The issue had tremendous potency. I don’t see any indication that the change of heart in the White House has changed the American people’s hostility to the idea.”

UPDATE: In case you’re interested, here’s EPI’s report on health insurance, the Cadillac tax and wages.

Health-care reform bill's proposed tax on high-cost plans raises questions

Washington Post

By: Alec MacGillis
January 7, 2010

With Congress on the verge of imposing a new tax on high-cost health insurance plans, skeptics continue to raise questions about who would be hit hardest and whether health-care spending would be limited as much as proponents say.

The Senate health-care legislation includes a 40 percent excise tax on insurance plans worth more than $23,000 per year for a family of four. When the legislation would go into effect in 2014, only a small fraction of all plans would be taxed, but more would be captured over time: roughly a quarter by 2019, collecting about $150 billion over 10 years.

The House legislation instead relies on an income tax surcharge on families earning more than $1 million. But centrist Senate Democrats are opposed to the surcharge, and the excise tax has been endorsed by the White House and many health-care economists, who tout its cost-containment potential.

Supporters of the Senate provision say it would restore some equity in the tax system, which exempts employer-provided health benefits while forcing people who buy insurance on their own to use after-tax dollars. To avoid the tax, supporters predict, employers and employees would shift to less-generous plans that would make patients more sensitive to costs, slowing the growth in health-care spending. Employers, the theory goes, would put the savings into higher wages.

Who would be taxed?

But as the tax proposal takes on an aura of inevitability, pockets of skepticism remain, even beyond labor unions, which are often cast as the main opposition because many union plans would be taxed.

Health analysts recently questioned the assumption that the tax would target only the most lavish insurance packages, nicknamed "Cadillac plans." The analysts, writing in the journal Health Affairs, found that some less-generous plans could be taxed because they are costly for other reasons. The location of an employer and the type of industry, for example, have as much to do with the cost of plans as the generosity of the benefits and the kind of plan. Smaller businesses, especially those with a preponderance of older workers, tend to have higher premiums, as do certain industries, including the health-care sector.

The Senate bill would phase in the tax more slowly in some higher-cost states and exempt a few industries that tend to have expensive plans, such as mining. But opponents say it is impossible to find a workable way of targeting the tax so it would spare people whose plans are not particularly generous.

"It's a very blunt instrument," said former labor secretary Robert Reich. "It makes far more sense on policy and political grounds to tax the top 1 percent rather than sweep in so many people that are paying more for health care, not because they are getting more health care but because they're older or working for small businesses."

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) notes that Obama pledged not to raise taxes on anyone earning under $250,000 and that he attacked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on the campaign trail in 2008 over his plan to do away with the tax-free treatment of employer-provided benefits. Pro-Republican groups are already turning the tables by running ads accusing Democrats of wanting to tax benefits.

"It's a plan that has great political risk for the Democrats," Courtney said.

Would it lower costs?

Separately, several health-care experts question whether shifting people into lower-cost plans is the best way to slow spending. It is possible, they concede, that the tax could move more employees into HMOs known for more efficient spending. But many markets lack such options.

It is more likely that employers would lower the cost of plans by increasing deductibles and co-pays, which skeptics say would not necessarily bring down health-care costs. Most costs are incurred by a minority of chronically ill patients. And health care is not like other markets, where consumers can make their own judgments based on quality and price; instead, patients make most major health-care decisions based on what their doctors tell them, skeptics point out.

A Rand study from the 1970s found that higher co-pays and deductibles led patients to limit medically necessary care as much as wasteful care, possibly leading to more costly health-care needs later.

"The consumer-directed-health-care crowd argues that with high cost-sharing, patients will do the only legitimate . . . cost-benefit calculus -- but that surely is nonsense," said Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt. "None of these proponents has ever shown that patients are even capable of evaluating the clinical merits" of treatment options.

Opponents of the tax say the case for it assumes that the country's high health-care costs are the result of patients' overuse of care. But, they note, the country's usage of medical care is by many measures lower than in other developed countries; it is the price that is so much higher here.

"The biggest problem we have isn't that we're demanding so many services, but it's that the type of services we're providing are so expensive," said Thomas Rice, a UCLA health-care expert.

Some economists also doubt that employers would shift savings from health care into wages, given how slack the labor market is likely to be for the foreseeable future.

Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and a leading proponent of the new tax, dismisses these concerns. Even if the tax hit some high-cost plans that are not particularly lavish, it would still goad employers generally to seek lower-cost plans, he contends. "The argument that because it won't cause efficiency in every case, we should therefore not do it, is a dumb argument," he said.

Bringing the plans below the tax threshold would require only slightly higher deductibles, he said, enough to make people more cost-sensitive but not enough to make them skip necessary care. "If you take people at the level where they're spending $23,000, that's not skimpy insurance, and . . . if you raise their co-pays or deductibles, that's not going to adversely affect their health," he said. "There's literally no evidence out there that people are going to suffer."

The Excise Tax: Political Poison?

NY Daily News

By Michael McAuliff

JANUARY 6, 2010

The excise tax in the Senate health care bill could be deadly for Democrats in 2010, Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney argued ahead of today’s White House pow wow on the bill and tomorrow’s Democratic caucus meeting to start merging the Senate and House versions.

His notion was also seconded, at least partially, by Robert Reich.

“This is a pretty challenging area for candidates to go out there and defend,” Courtney said on a conference call today, noting that even though John McCain initially came up with the idea in the White House race, “I don’t think that Republicans are going to give Democrats a free pass on this.”

He added:”The Obama campaign was not bashful at all in going for the throat” on the idea of taxing health care benefits.

“The issue had tremendous potency on the campaign trail in 2008,” Courtney said. “It’s a plan that has great political risks for Democrats.”

The problem, said Courtney, Reich and the Economic Policy Institute, is that the “Cadillac” plans the Senate measure taxes are not really Cadillacs. Often they are simply expensive plans that are expensive only because older, sicker people and small businesses buy them. That means middle and lower-middle class folks and small businesses would end up bearing the brunt of the tax, they argue.

Reich argued that while favoring the Senate health scheme over the House’s would not doom Democrats, it would make them look more out of touch because they’d be taxing regular folk and small businesses, rather than taxing the top 1% of earners as the House plan proposes.

“I think Democrats need to be sensitive that the disparities between wealthy Americans and average working people are growing,” he said, adding that backing the excise tax would be “another indication of a lack of sensitivity to this growing gap.”

The bill negotiators are working on ways to make the excise tax more targeted, sources have told us, but no one on the call thought a good solution could be found. “There’s no comparison,” to taxing the wealthy, Reich said.

Obama Backs Cadillac Tax as Pelosi Faces Discord on Health Bill

Business Week

By Laura Litvan and Kristin Jensen

January 7, 2010

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is pushing U.S. House Democrats to drop their opposition to a tax on high- end insurance plans as lawmakers try to craft a final health- care measure by early next month, a Democratic aide said.

The president expressed a preference for a Senate proposal to tax so-called Cadillac plans in a meeting yesterday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and top party lawmakers, the aide said. The White House meeting came on the eve of a conference call Pelosi plans for noon today with her chamber’s Democrats.

Pelosi is facing resistance as she tries to resolve differences in House and Senate bills that would mark the biggest changes to U.S. health policy in 45 years. The Cadillac tax is opposed by labor unions, which are among the party’s strongest backers, and 190 House Democrats.

“I realize the White House has a timeline they want to meet here, but particularly on the tax issue, there is great potential for blowback,” said Representative Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat who’s helping lead opposition to the tax.

How to pay for the 10-year legislation, whose price tag topped $1 trillion in the House, may be the biggest fight in coming days. The Senate would impose a 40 percent tax on the high-end, employer-provided insurance plans; the House wants a 5.4 percent surtax on couples earning at least $1 million.

‘Stand Tough’

House Democrats say they will also push for a new government insurance program and greater subsidies to help millions of lower-income Americans buy policies. That may mean missing Obama’s push for completion before his State of the Union address, they said.

“If we rush, the Senate will get most of its bad work implemented into law, and I don’t think we should allow that to happen,” said Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio. “We should stand tough on some of these issues.”

With virtually no Republican support for the bill, Pelosi is depending on Democrats to stick together. Both the House and Senate would create online insurance-purchasing exchanges, expand the Medicaid program for the poor and attempt to curb medical costs.

The Senate approved its bill on Dec. 24 with the support of all 58 Democrats and two independents, the exact number needed to overcome Republican delaying tactics. Senate Democrats said that razor-thin vote gives them the upper hand.

Pelosi’s Margin

“It’s going to have to be very close to the Senate package or you can see we won’t get 60 votes,” North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad said in a Bloomberg Television interview.

Still, Pelosi won her Nov. 7 vote with just 220 of the House’s 435 votes, so she can’t afford to lose many members.

Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, said in a memo that he’s identified 37 House Democrats who might be persuaded to vote against the bill.

Top Democrats may ask House members to give up the most if the Senate legislation dominates. Among other things, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of more than 80 lawmakers, would probably lose its fight for the so-called public option to compete with private insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc.

“There are components of the House version that must not be dismissed,” Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, a caucus leader, said in a Dec. 22 statement. Grijalva said he’d also push for a mandate that employers offer insurance.

Antitrust Exemption

DeFazio wants a House-approved repeal of the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption. Senate leaders kept the exemption to win over Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

House leaders said they may accept a Senate plan to increase Medicare payroll taxes on high earners. The Senate bill would impose an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on individuals who make more than $200,000 a year and on couples earning more than $250,000.

Abortion is also a major issue, as Nelson and other lawmakers seek to ensure federal subsidies to help buy insurance don’t pay for the procedure.

In the House, dozens of abortion-rights supporters voted for the bill after an amendment from Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak while saying they wouldn’t support final legislation with the same language because it might discourage insurers from covering abortions. Some are concerned about a Senate compromise Nelson worked out.

Meeting With Obama

Democratic negotiators have to find a way to appease both liberals and Stupak, who got 63 other Democrats to support his plan and said the Senate language won’t work.

Obama also pushed congressional leaders to come up with stronger subsidy provisions than those in the Senate bill, a House Democratic aide said after a Jan. 5 White House meeting.

The House bill includes $602 billion in affordability credits, compared with $436 billion in tax credits in the Senate plan, according to a comparison provided by House staff.

Lawmakers seeking more changes got ammunition from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who previously supported an overhaul of the health system.

“It is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling,” Schwarzenegger said yesterday. “Health- care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes.”

--With assistance from William Selway in San Francisco and Ryan J. Donmoyer, Brian Faler, James Rowley, Lizzie O’Leary and Edwin Chen in Washington. Editors: Mark McQuillan, Robin Meszoly

Bill Will Re-Up child hunger efforts

2009-12-17T11:37:00.000-08:00

BY STEVE SMITH Staff Writer - Reminder News

Representatives of food banks, school lunch administrators, and other town and school officials from across the state converged at Rockville High School in Vernon last Tuesday for what was termed a “listening session” with U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney.

The event doubled as a rally for support for a bill heading to Congress, as well as the programs and implementations that are expected to follow it.

Lucy Nolan, executive director of End Hunger Connecticut! (EHC) said Congress is scheduled to act on the reauthorization of childhood nutrition programs in the next six months.

“We’ve already begun,” she said. “Their bill’s already in the hopper.”

She added that the programs, essential to feeding the nation’s children, include school lunch programs (including school breakfast), summer feeding programs , day care and after-school meals, and the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) program.

“These are really needed now more than ever,” Nolan said. “Participation in these programs has increased significantly .”
Eleven percent of households in Connecticut , Nolan said, are affected by “food insecurity,” meaning that somehow their ability to get food is disrupted . Connecticut also ranks last in the nation for number of schools that serve breakfast.

“However,” Nolan said, “we’ve moved from 47th to 40th for the number of kids getting a school breakfast.”

The National School Lunch Act was passed in 1946, when young men were showing up to draft boards and failing their physicals. “If Congress were to write it today,” Ellen Teller of the Food Research and Action Center in Washington , D.C., said, “it would probably look exactly the same.”

She read part of that act that states, “It is hereby declared to be a policy of Congress, as a measure of National Security …to safeguard the health and well-being of the nation’s children.”

According to Teller, a recent commission of military generals reached the same conclusion – that today’s youth are not healthy enough to serve, and are flunking physicals.

Teller said there are three principles driving the efforts for the 2009 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act; Expansion of access and participation in these programs, especially for low-income children; Improvement of meal quality; and Modernization of the administration of the programs.

Teller said the bill would flow nicely after the healthcare reform bill, since many of the programs pertain to health promotion and disease prevention.

“We see that we’re in the on-deck circle ,” she said. “When we get up to bat, we will continue to send players around the bases.”
EHC’s Child Nutrition Policy Director , Dawn Crayco, said EHC’s studies found that summer meal programs, funded federally, are based on the average income of a geographical area, rather than by the incomes of individual families. So, there are a number of families that could benefit, but simply do not have access to the program.

“An administrative change that could dramatically open lines of access to children [would be to] increase the lines of the area-eligibility test,” Crayco said, adding that 50 percent of children in a given area must reach the income threshold – a number that is “too high.”

The act will also address a gap that exists in school-based meals.

Monica Pacheco, Food Services director for Vernon Public Schools, said she has seen positive changes in the standards of reimbursements for schools that improve the nutritional content of meals. However, the cost of school lunches would still have to increase, in order to offset the costs of the underfunded free lunch programs.

“We have also seen a dramatic increase in the number of families who qualify for free and reduced-price meals,” Pacheco said.
Courtney said he is optimistic about the bill being funded.

“In my opinion, by looking around this administration,…there are people who are passionate that we’ve got to switch our priorities, domestically, towards young Americans,” he said. “A big part of it is this plan. The forces are aligned in a good place right now to get this done.”

He added that the efforts of groups and individuals also need to continue.

“Groups like the TVCCA, the Norwich School system, and the Vernon school system [need] to keep pounding away at the obvious need that exists out there,” Courtney said.

Courtney cited studies of how stimulus monies are being used, and to what extent they shortening the recession.
“This issue…has a great economic benefit, in terms of the U.S. economy,” he said. “For every dollar spent on food stamps, the multiplier effect of the boost it gives to economic activities is $1.84. That’s actually a higher multiplier than unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending, technology, and other programs.”

Rep. Karen Jarmoc of Enfield (59th district), co-chair of the House task force on children in the recession, said the recession is expected to send an additional 35,000 children in the state into poverty.

Last week, Jarmoc and her daughter shadowed a family that utilizes the Enfield Food Shelf.

“We are trying to get by on the food that the family would receive from the food shelf,” she said. “Quite honestly, I already know that we are not going to get by.”

Editorial: Tax On Health Plans Is Wrong

2009-11-13T07:06:00.000-08:00

The Day - October 18, 2009

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, who represents our own 2nd District, has raised valid concerns about the proposed tax on high-cost health insurance plans. The America's Healthy Future Act approved last week by the Senate Finance Committee would utilize the excise tax to produce the bulk of the revenues necessary to expand insurance coverage to millions of people now uninsured.

In fact Rep. Courtney, a sophomore lawmaker, has become a leader among those Democrats in the House opposing the so-called “Cadillac” tax. A letter he wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging her “to continue to reject proposals to enact an excise tax on high cost insurance plans” has since been signed by about 175 fellow House Democrats, representing a whopping two-thirds of the party caucus.

A recent New York Times cover story on the split among House and Senate Democrats over the health tax prominently featured Rep. Courtney. His prominence in the debate has attracted the notice of the White House, and a visit from President Obama's Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel, heady stuff for a congressman only in his third year.

The hard lines being drawn over how to pay for health care reform could potentially sink the reform efforts. That is certainly not his wish, said Rep. Courtney, a politician who has made his desire for universal and affordable health care coverage a signature issue since his days in the Connecticut House of Representatives.

Beginning in 2013, the government would impose a tax on health plans with total premiums exceeding $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families. Any policy costs above those numbers would be subject to a 40 percent excise tax, so the $7,000 overage of a $28,000 policy would incur an additional $2,800 tax. The tax would be paid by insurers, with the expectation they would pass the cost along to customers.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called for a version of this approach in his failed bid for the presidency. Its chief current advocate, Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said that in addition to raising needed revenues it will drive down health spending. In an attempt to avoid paying the tax, he reasons, insurers will search for ways to control their costs and employers will be motivated to forgo “Cadillac” benefits.

Rep. Courtney has a problem with that logic and, frankly, so do we. Many workers opted for better health benefits in lieu of salary increases. Now they are supposed to pay higher taxes on those insurance policies or accept lower benefits? Employees in the Northeast, who on average have costlier plans, would be particularly hard hit. And rather than reduce costs, the tax will more likely shift it, to employees.

Rep. Courtney has found allies in both labor and the business community in opposing the tax.

So how to raise revenues, and cut costs? Put tort reform on the table, for one. Congress must stop the rampant frivolous medical lawsuits that drive up malpractice insurance premiums for doctors and health costs for everyone. Also, allow greater competition among insurers. Impose a health surtax on the rich, not as a penalty, but as a share in addressing a national problem.

There is much to like in the Senate Finance Committee health bill, but not the insurance plan excise tax.

Articles on Congressman Courtney's Effort to Block Health Care Benefit Taxes

2009-11-13T07:00:00.000-08:00

New York Times

By: Robert Pear and David Herzenhorn

October 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — A proposed tax on high-cost, or “Cadillac,” health insurance plans has touched off a fierce clash between the Senate and the House as they wrestle over how to pay for legislation that would provide health benefits to millions of uninsured Americans.

Supporters, including many senators, say that the tax is essential to tamping down medical spending and that over 10 years it would generate more than $200 billion, nearly a fourth of what is needed to pay for the legislation.

Critics, including House members and labor unions, say the tax would quickly spiral out of control and hit middle-class workers, people more closely associated with minivans than Cadillacs.

The tax, a provision of the bill to be voted on Tuesday by the Senate Finance Committee, is one of the few remaining proposals under consideration by Congress that budget experts say could lead directly to a reduction in health care spending over the long term, by prompting employers and employees to buy cheaper insurance. Whether it remains in the bill is emerging as a test of the commitment by President Obama and his party to slowing the steep rise of medical expenses.

It is also a prime example of the major differences still to be bridged by Democrats as health care legislation advances to floor debate in both houses.

Under the Finance Committee bill, the tax would be imposed beginning in 2013 on employer- sponsored health plans with total premiums exceeding $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, regardless of whether the coverage was paid for by the employer, the individual or both. The tax would be paid by insurers, who would be expected to pass along the cost to customers.

Critics say that would mean an increase in premiums or in out-of-pocket expenses for employees, raising medical costs for individuals and families.

Supporters say the more likely prospect is that employers would bargain-hunt or take other steps to avoid the tax, putting pressure on insurers to offer cheaper coverage and slowing the rise in medical costs for everyone.

In a preliminary estimate, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation calculated that absent any such employer efforts, 14 percent of family health policies and 19 percent of individual policies would be hit by the tax in 2013. By 2019, according to the estimate, 37 percent of family policies and 41 percent of individual policies would be affected. Those numbers rise over time in these calculations because although the initial tax threshold would increase with the economy’s overall inflation, premiums would be expected to rise even faster.

Many Democratic senators, led by the Finance Committee chairman, Max Baucus of Montana, like the idea of the tax, and Mr. Obama embraced it in his speech to Congress on Sept. 9.

“This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money,” the president said then. “This modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run.”

Congress has also heard from many economists, Republicans and Democrats alike, who support the tax.

But House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chamber’s chief tax-writer, oppose the idea, as do labor unions and businesses. Ms. Pelosi last week floated the idea of taxing insurers’ “windfall profits” as a possible alternative, to supplement the House’s main revenue raiser, an income tax surcharge on the nation’s highest earners.

At least 173 House Democrats, two-thirds of the party caucus, have signed a letter to Ms. Pelosi voicing opposition to the insurance tax .

“The tax, supposedly aimed at Cadillac health plans, would affect millions of middle-class people,” said Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut. “The American people soundly rejected the idea when it was proposed by Republicans in elections last year.”

Under current law, employer-paid premiums for health insurance are not taxable. Experts say this provides a big government subsidy for such coverage, and an incentive for businesses to provide better benefits in lieu of higher wages.

In an unusual alliance reflecting the shared interest of some unions and businesses on the issue, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the United States Chamber of Commerce are mobilizing opposition to the tax.

James P. Gelfand, senior manager of health policy at the Chamber of Commerce, said that if the tax is imposed, “employers will have to reduce wages or benefits or increase cost-sharing.” And, he said, “employees will blame employers, not the government.”

Leaders of organized labor, which in recent years has often negotiated for benefits in place of raises, descended on Capitol Hill last week to lobby against the tax, which could hit many health plans covering unionized workers. Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, said at least half his members would be in health plans subject to the tax in 2013.

John P. Yrchik, executive director of the Connecticut Education Association, has lobbied Mr. Courtney and other members of the state’s Congressional delegation, noting that the tax would affect teachers in 30 percent of Connecticut towns. In some towns, Mr. Yrchik said, health insurance premiums for teachers’ family policies already exceed $25,000.

Aides to Mr. Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, said the tax had numerous benefits, and predicted that employers and employees would shop for health plans to avoid it, forcing insurers to rein in costs.

They also cited projections by the Joint Committee on Taxation that about $142 billion of the 10-year total of $201 billion to be raised by the proposal would come from increased income and payroll taxes — evidence, they said, that workers would receive increased wages if employers spent less on health benefits.

But the same expectation that employers would adjust their health plans to avoid the tax was cited by some critics as a potential harm for workers.

“Employers and insurers will reduce their benefits to avoid paying the proposed tax,” said Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who heads the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health. “As a result, middle-class families will be forced to pay more for health care.”

Some experts said that the tax was a complicated, backdoor way to tax employer-provided health benefits, and a number of them maintained that simply ending the tax exemption for such benefits would be a better approach.

Others said the tax would have an uneven impact, falling harder on businesses that, for instance, have older employees or are situated in high-cost regions.

Robert H. Dobson, an actuary at Milliman, an employee benefits consulting firm, said, “The high cost of so-called Cadillac plans has as much to do with the characteristics of the covered population as it does with the richness of the benefits.”

Courtney Fighting Excise Tax On Health Care Benefits

The Day

October 8, 2009

Washington - Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, delivered a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Wednesday urging the Democratic leadership not to support a health care bill that includes an excise tax on insurers of expensive employer-sponsored health care benefits.

The Senate Finance Committee is considering a bill that would impose the tax on high-value insurance plans beginning in 2013, which House members believe would be passed along by the insurers to working families and individuals.

Insurers would pay a 40 percent tax on the portion of plans that exceed $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families. Many middle-income Americans have insurance plans that surpass this threshold.

”The middle class has borne enough of the burden of the economic struggles of this country for the past 10 years that they should be shielded from the issue of who pays for health care reform,” Courtney said at a press conference on Wednesday.

The excise tax would offset part of the cost of the Finance Committee bill. The bills three House committees have approved would rely on other revenue sources to ensure that the legislation would be deficit-neutral.

Courtney's letter to Pelosi included 157 signatures from members of the House; that's 62 percent of all House Democrats.

”Any effort to try and tax health benefits along the lines of what the Senate Finance Committee has proposed is a nonstarter for a supermajority that exists in the House Democratic Caucus,” Courtney said.

None of the House bills includes an excise tax, but many members are concerned that it will become a point of negotiation when the legislation reaches a House-Senate conference committee.

”There's not many letters with 157 signatures; that's what speaks volumes here,” Courtney said.

U.S. Rep Courtney Objects To Tax On High-Cost Health Plans

Hartford Courant

By: Daniela Altimari

October 3, 2009

They're called Cadillac health plans and they conjure up images of insurance coverage for spa treatments, cosmetic surgery and other medical indulgences.

Some Democrats on the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance want to levy a tax on such plans, beginning in 2013. The tax would be both a mechanism to generate money for an overhaul of the nation's health care system and a way to help rein in spiraling medical costs.

But while these plans are commonly thought to be luxuries for the very rich, the reality is more complicated.

Many of the Cadillac plans — defined as individual plans worth $8,000 and family plans worth $21,000 — are held by middle-class workers, many of them union members who traded better benefits for wage concessions.

The proposed tax "would put a burden on middle-class families," U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney said in a telephone press conference Friday. It would also disproportionately affect residents living in regions with higher health care costs, such as the Northeast, he said.

Employees would be subject to a tax "for something they really have no control over," Courtney said. "This is a flawed approach."

The 2nd District Democrat has drafted a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi registering his disapproval of the finance committee's plan. The purpose of the letter is to put up a "big red flag for the White House and congressional leadership that this is going to be a problem," Courtney said.

He has circulated the letter among his colleagues; as of late Friday afternoon, more than 100 House members had signed on.

"The short-term impact would be greatest on individuals and families living in high-cost regions and for those that have sacrificed pay increases for strong benefits," Courtney wrote.

"Over the long term, the number of individuals and families subjected to the tax would likely continue to grow. To this end, we urge you to continue to reject proposals to enact an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans that could be potentially passed on to middle-class families," his letter states.

The nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health care policy, found that 2.7 percent of workers covered by family health insurance plans have premiums greater than $21,000 in 2009. By 2013, when the proposed tax would take effect, that percentage would likely grow, a spokesman for the foundation estimates.

Courtney Looks To Get Coast Guard Museum Project Up and Running

2009-11-13T05:07:00.000-08:00

The Day By: Jennifer Grogan

October 15, 2009

New London - U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney wants to get the stalled National Coast Guard Museum project going again by creating a public-private partnership to support the endeavor.

Courtney, D-2nd District, discussed the project with Adm. Thad W. Allen, Coast Guard commandant, late last month and requested a letter reaffirming the service's support for the museum.

Allen did not say in that letter whether he supports such a partnership, but other stakeholders, including Coast Guard Foundation President Anne Brengle, are in favor of the idea.

Brengle said there is “no way this can be just a project built on private philanthropy; it has got to be a public-private partnership.”

Allen called New London the “natural home” for the museum in the letter, dated Oct. 5, since the city has historical ties to the Coast Guard, has a place in national maritime history and is home to the Coast Guard Academy.

Courtney wants to amend the 2004 law that established New London as the home to the National Coast Guard Museum to allow the Coast Guard to help pay for the museum.

The law states that no appropriated funds will be spent for the engineering, design or construction of the museum, and only limited funding will be available for operating the museum once it is built.

Plans for the $65 million project were put on hold in July, with the National Coast Guard Museum Association and the Coast Guard Foundation citing lackluster fundraising and a stagnant economy as the reasons.

”People recognize this will be a privately-funded entity but it still needs some Coast Guard support, just like the other military services support their museums,” Courtney said. “So we want to find a way to send the signal that the Coast Guard is directly involved in this effort.”

Allen's press secretary, Lt. Cmdr. Tony Russell, said Wednesday that it would inappropriate to comment on any potential legislative changes but that “we remain committed to working with Congressman Courtney and our many other supporters to develop a world-class facility that will make New London, the Coast Guard and the nation proud.”

The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the strategic master plan for the project, and Courtney wants to propose changing the law after that review is complete, sometime this winter.

The Coast Guard is the only branch of the military that does not have a national museum to recount its history, service and missions. A small museum at the Coast Guard Academy displays some artifacts but space limitations prevent larger exhibits.

In late 2008, the Coast Guard Foundation announced plans for a roughly 60,000-square-foot museum on a parcel of land in Fort Trumbull off Nameaug Street Extension. A portion of that site was originally slated to be the site of a hotel and conference center when the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project began 10 years ago.

The museum had originally been proposed on a different part of the Fort Trumbull peninsula that was not on the waterfront.

John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp., said the museum is important to the development of Fort Trumbull, as a “major attraction” that will “complement the other outstanding maritime attractions in our area.”

”We are looking forward to the economic recovery that will allow resumption of the fundraising efforts for the museum,” he said in a statement.

Day staff writer Kathleen Edgecomb contributed to this report.

Courtney Answers Questions Patiently

2009-09-08T08:18:00.000-07:00

The following letter to the editor appeared in the September 5, 2009 edition of The Day:

Anyone who expressed doubts in these letters to the editor about Rep. Joe Courtney's willingness to meet with the public should have been at his town hall meeting Wednesday night in Montville.

Despite the hostile and rude nature of the opposition to health care, Congressman Courtney's answers were earnest, clear and forthright. He was patient and informative.

Why the hostility? I can understand that there are legitimate differences of opinion about health care, but the hostile tone of the opposition seems beyond health care issues. It seems as though people have anger problems and have chosen this issue to focus their anger on.

It's not easy to be a public official these days. Rep. Courtney stayed beyond the town hall meeting to answer questions for more people in the cafeteria. Some questions he had to answer over and over, and he did, patiently. I'm very proud he's my congressman.

Mary von Dorster, Noank

Courtney Stood on the High Ground

2009-09-08T07:44:00.000-07:00

From a letter to the editor published in the September 8, 2009 edition of the New London Day:

I appreciate Rep. Joe Courtney for making good on his campaign promises and walking that proverbial walk. He has demonstrated that he truly is a representative of the people, not the politics. I salute him for restoring honor and honesty to public office.

He stood his ground, the high ground, at the acrimonious Montville town meeting. He endured some cheap shots and low blows from the “frankly, I don't give a damn about the uninsured because I have my health care coverage” crowd. He stood tall and landed some good, clean punches. It's reassuring to know we have him fighting for our fellow uninsured Americans.

He has been the steadying hand, moral compass and a clear and uncompromising conscience for the people of his district during these difficult times. Kudos to him for remaining centered and committed on legislating health care reform.

How can we help Rep. Courtney advance the humanity, compassion, pragmatism and patriotism contained in the public option? How do we argue convincingly and successfully that the public option is the best health care alternative for our grandparents and our grandbabies?

How can we help Congressman Courtney? Where would he like us to go?

Mary Hansen Old Saybrook
"Regional"

Courtney Spoke Truth at Meeting

2009-09-08T07:43:00.001-07:00

From a letter to the editor in the September 8, 2009 edition of the New London Day:

I attended Congressman Joe Courtney's town hall meeting Wednesday night in Montville.

Rep. Courtney did an excellent job answering people's questions and getting information out about Congress's proposal for health care reform.

It could not have been easy for Rep. Courtney to stay calm and professional and even show a sense of humor with people in opposition yelling and cutting him off from speaking. He answered questions knowledgeably and got the truth out about what is being proposed for health care reform.

Some people listened and some chose not to. It is so evident that we need health care reform now.

I am proud to have Congressman Joe Courtney representing me in Washington, D.C.

Elizabeth Duarte Groton

Logee's Greenhouse Receives Energy Grant

2009-09-08T06:58:00.000-07:00

From the September 4, 2009 edition of the Norwich Bulletin:

Logee’s Greenhouses in Danielson was awarded $195,650 in federal funding Friday to initiate energy efficient improvements.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, announced the company was awarded the grant and more than $391,000 in long-term, low-interest loans through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development program.

Logee’s plans to build a four-bay greenhouse with an energy efficient foundation and energy efficient heat retention curtains and operating equipment.

Positive Response to Problem

2009-09-08T05:48:00.000-07:00

Enfield auto dealer Dana Miller writes in the September 7, 2009 edition of the Hartford Courant about how Congressman Courtney's office helped resolve an ongoing issue:

Congressman Courtney's office went right to work on the problem, as did the DMV commissioner's office. I'm thankful that after many calls, especially by one of Rep. Courtney's staff members, they were able to resolve the problem.

News Roundup - September 8, 2009

2009-09-08T04:59:00.000-07:00

New London Rolling In Stimulus Money

The Day
By: Karin Crompton
September 7, 2009

New London - In an office accustomed to too much paperwork and too little money, Cara Pianka has a strange dilemma.

Since mid-April, when Pianka, the community development/lead coordinator for the city's Office of Development and Planning, got the go-ahead to use federal economic stimulus money, the money has been pouring in.

The office still has too much paperwork. The funding, for now, is a different story.

”At this time, I have so much money to manage, I don't know what I'll do if I get more,” Pianka said. “And every once in a while, I'll find out about something else I'm getting and it's like, 'Oh, geez.'”

”I don't usually complain about getting money, but I'd also like to manage the money well,” she added.

It started with a grant for the city's Lead Hazard Reduction Program and has continued into a Neighborhood Stabilization Program (also known as foreclosure prevention). Pianka's staff of six employees- five full-time, one part-time - is now handling far more projects than it did at the turn of the new year.

”It's a crazy world we live in right now, and having 4.6 million dollars to manage, it's a great thing,” Pianka said. “It's a challenge because last year, I was managing two to three million. So we're talking double - double the money and a lot more requirements.”

The office has 43 units in 35 properties currently lined up for work through the lead abatement and Housing Conservation Programs combined. They will ultimately work on 70 units.

Though there's no waiting list and homeowners can be approved now, Pianka said it can still take an inspector four months to start the process.

A trademark of the stimulus package is its so-called “transparency,” which requires recipients to track where the money has gone in detail beyond that normally associated with the projects.

For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, for example, Pianka's office has to keep estimates of how many jobs are created or retained.

The program also contains a prevailing wage stipulation for every job, regardless of size - normally there's a minimum, like eight units and up - and Pianka has to review payroll sheets for proper hours, job classification, etc.

In addition, Pianka's target moves. The federal government regularly changes the wages, so Pianka needs to check online every week to see which job pays how much.

”It makes the management and oversight of each job more complicated,” Pianka said.

During each job, the office also has to interview at least one employee to demonstrate, on the record, what that person is working on, that they are performing the correct job and have not been coerced into working overtime without getting paid.

Still, Pianka said, the timing of the grant was fortuitous. New London has had a lead-abatement program for about 10 years and without the stimulus funding, Pianka said, the program would have ended.

”We would have lost at least one full-time position and another part-time position,” she said, describing the lead program manager and lead nurse jobs, each funded fully through the grant. Half of another position, a loan specialist, is also funded through the grant, she said.

Additionally, dozens of contractors became interested in becoming certified in lead abatement, and the office has organized three week-long training sessions since the spring, training 42 people. Pianka said attendees received the training, which normally costs $450 or $500, for free because of the stimulus funds.

The office is also handling extra funding through its Community Development Block Grant program and will work on a new energy efficiency program as soon as it receives an application from the state's Office of Policy and Management.

Pianka said her workload has let up a bit, since much of what she worked on dealt with the start of the jobs; the others in her office are now the ones heading out for inspections and other work affiliated with ongoing projects.

The work should continue for about three years.

”Since the stimulus funding has come along, it's been nonstop,” Pianka said. “It's just been overwhelming at times.”

Courtney: Groton Sub Base Is Safe… For Now
Norwich Bulletin
By: Michael Gannon

August 31, 2009
New London, Conn. —

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney told members of the region’s Subase Coalition that there are no tangible signs of another round of military base closures on the horizon.

“But we still have to be concerned about a future BRAC commission,” Courtney said after the meeting.

Four years ago, the Pentagon recommended that the Navy’s submarine base in Groton be eliminated. The decision was up to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, or BRAC.

After an intensive lobbying effort on the part of the Subase Coalition, other local groups, the state and Connecticut’s congressional delegation, the commission voted on Aug. 24, 2005, to save the base.

Courtney said any new such commission would have to be established by legislation, and that there is not even a whiff of anything in Congress. But John Markowicz, chairman of the Subase Coalition and a retired Navy captain, said the region must be prepared to fight again.

“There are some green shoots out there,” he said, referring to conversations he has heard within Navy circles, with very specific language about excess Navy shore infrastructure.

$50 million from state

Since the last threat of base closure, the state has formed an Office of Military Affairs, and has pledged $50 million for base infrastructure, an investment designed to improve the base’s military viability.

Courtney said federal money for the base, including $9 million for a new torpedo magazine, is in the House defense appropriations bill but has not yet been decided in the Senate.

Salem First Selectman Bob Ross, nominated by Gov. M. Jodi Rell as the next executive director of the state’s Office of Military Affairs, said his approach, if confirmed in February, will be to assume a BRAC is coming at some point in the future.

It’s an approach local businessman Joe Quaratella believes is prudent.

“I’ve been in business in this town for 48 years,” said the owner of the Nautilus Barbershop on Route 12 in Groton. “They’re pouring a lot of money into (the base), so it looks OK for the future. But anything can happen.”

Courtney told the group that President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are committed to the submarine program, with budget requests that include expanding the construction of Virginia-class attack submarines and research and design money for the next generation of ballistic subs to replace the aging Ohio class.

Both programs mean contracts for Groton submarine builder Electric Boat. According to a Department of Defense information paper issued June 1, Groton is one of only two bases in the country equipped to serve as home port for Virginias. The other is at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

Statement from the Campaign, Sept 4, 2009
Rep. Courtney Makes $500 Contribution to Two Second District Social Service Groups

Congressman Joe Courtney announced that his campaign has made $500 in contributions to Second Congressional District food pantries and assistance groups aiding eastern Connecticut’s families in need.

The $500 represents the amount of a campaign contribution to Courtney for Congress in 2006 from Abraham Giles. Mr. Giles was arrested on September 2nd and has been accused of larceny and extortion in connection with property development. The following food pantries will both receive a $250 contribution:

* St. Vincent de Paul Place, Norwich
* Hockanum Valley Community Council, Vernon

Traveling throughout eastern Connecticut Congressman Courtney continues to see the impact of social service organizations such as Hockanum Valley and St. Vincent reaching out to those struggling in challenging economic times.

“Although this matter has not been completely adjudicated, I believe that my campaign should adhere to a higher standard of appearance, and I thought strongly that the amount of this particular contribution would be better served by these two leading organizations in our community,” stated Courtney.

U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Buys 290 Acre Parcel In Haddam
Hartford Courant
By: Monica Planco
August 29, 2009

HADDAM — - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Friday bought an undeveloped 290-acre parcel from the Nature Conservancy and the town of Haddam for $1,755,000, officials said.

The purchase establishes the Salmon River division of U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Silvio O. Conte refuge, which was established in 1997 to protect plants, fish and wildlife that live throughout the 7.2 million-acre Connecticut River watershed.

The 290-acre property in Haddam Neck, once home to the Johnson family's Elm Camp, is considered one of the most important properties for conservation because it's at the confluence of the tidal Pine Brook and Salmon River, the benchmark for water quality in Connecticut. The land links the ecologically rich Salmon Cove with more than 6,000 acres of protected land to the north, said Shelley Green, the Nature Conservancy's lower Connecticut River program director.

The Nature Conservancy and Haddam each paid $1 million to buy the land in 2005 to keep it from being developed. Members of both parties said they were glad to sell it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Everyone now will be able to rest easy knowing that that property will be available in perpetuity for the use of the public and preserved from any future development," said Haddam First Selectman Tony Bondi. "I couldn't be happier."

Green said she owes a "big thanks" to U.S. Reps. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, and Chris Murphy, D-5th District, and Sens. Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, who advocated for Congress to provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with enough money to buy the land.

The federal agency, which is required to pay market value, bought the property for $245,000 less than what the Nature Conservancy and the town of Haddam paid because of declining market values, Green said.

The Nature Conservancy and Haddam officials are splitting the $1.8 million sale evenly, Green said. In Haddam, the money will be placed in a separate, interest-bearing account until the finance board decides how to spend it, Bondi said. Townspeople have recommended that it be used for open space.

Green's organization will now focus on its next most important project: working to preserve a 582-acre privately owned parcel in Haddam Neck. Connecticut Yankee, the landowner, is fielding expressions of interest from various parties, including nonprofits, for-profits and land preservation groups.

The New London Day: Good Job, Joe

2009-09-06T18:42:00.001-07:00

Editorial from the New London Day, September 6, 2009:

Though he faced a tough crowd at Montville High School on Wednesday, it was a good week for U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, the Democratic representing the 2nd District.

Courtney, whose desire to provide health care to all citizens stretches back to his service in the state legislature, stood his ground despite the taunts and groans. He defended the key reform proposals: assure no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions; streamline the insurance documentation process; and provide a public plan to compete with the private sector.

Many in the audience did not buy into Courtney's contention that the federal government can effectively manage health care reform without further bankrupting the country. But no one can fault him for not taking the tough questions.

Congressman Joe Courtney on MSNBC's "The Ed Show"

2009-07-20T07:45:00.001-07:00

Hearings begin on Courtney-sponsored health care bill on pre-existing conditions

2009-05-20T08:27:00.000-07:00

By: Michael Gannon
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Apr 23, 2009

A House of Representatives subcommittee held public hearings Thursday on a bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney that would largely bar insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

“About 45 percent of all people have some sort of chronic condition or illness,” Courtney, D-2nd District, said Thursday in a conference call. “Many of them are in the individual health insurance market or are moving from one job to another or starting up a business. And they run smack into the chutes and ladders game of companies denying them coverage because of conditions that are identified as high-risk.”

He said parts of the individual and group health insurance markets are broken. He said his bill, backed by a list of 37 health care organizations, would not be a tremendous hardship on insurance companies because it would spread the risk.

U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., has a companion bill in the Senate. Courtney hopes to have a bill on President Barack Obama’s desk for signature by the end of the year.

Courtney said some conditions, such as domestic abuse or previous Cesarean section childbirths, are “irrationally” classified as pre-existing conditions carrying high risk.

He acknowledged companies forced to take on patients with illnesses such as cancer, HIV or to take on the elderly are facing greater risk.

“There’s no question that (the bill) would have to be accompanied by reforms to the marketplace,” he said.

Nancy Andrews of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association said Thursday the association has not yet studied the bill enough to have an opinion.

“That has been more of a national issue that we have not been following closely,” she said. “But we will be studying it.”

Courtney Tours Stimulus Recipients

2009-04-09T09:36:00.000-07:00

From the New London Day, April 8, 2009

As the wind ripped across Stonington Harbor early Tuesday afternoon, Congressman Joe Courtney stood at Don's Dock in Stonington with a small group of people.

Among them were two Stonington men who have spent the past four years trying to persuade Amtrak to fund a project that will raise the clearance under two railroad bridges so more boats can gain access to the upper harbor and the marina at Don's Dock, which caters to small boats.

Courtney had come to celebrate the announcement that $10 million of the $1.3 billion that Amtrak is receiving in federal stimulus money will be used to replace the century-old spans and increase the clearances.

Don's Dock was among several stops the Democrat from the 2nd District made Tuesday as he visited places that will receive federal stimulus money.

Courtney was not able to say exactly how many jobs the $10 million bridge project would create, but he said it would provide work for steelworkers, masons and others in the building trades, who he said have been particularly hard-hit by the recession, layoffs and foreclosures.

”This is the kind of work that will help get that segment of the economy going again,” he said. “It's also an investment in our transportation system.”

Ian Hetherington, owner of Don's Dock, said the work will also benefit his plans to add 120 slips to his operation. He said the expansion will eventually lead to the hiring of six more employees.

Courtney said he will press Amtrak to start work on the 8-month-long project this year.

Because the bridge clearances are so low now, small boats can get under them for only a few hours a day; no vessel can pass at high tide. The project will raise the bridges by 18 and 23 inches, respectively, which will allow boats to pass under during most tides and give larger boats access as well.

When Bryan Chesebrough and Andy Williams heard Amtrak was going to replace the bridges back in 2005, they began a campaign to persuade the railroad they could complete the project and increase the clearance without raising the height of the tracks.

The project was eventually approved but never funded. But both men said Tuesday their persistence paid off.

”There were plenty of times when we could have given up on this and thrown our hands up in the air,” said Williams, a native of Scotland who recently became a U.S. citizen. “This is an example of what can happen when you get involved.”

Courtney said it appears that eastern Connecticut has received more Amtrak stimulus money than any other congressional district.

Also approved was $100 million to replace the Niantic River Bridge, $16 million to paint the Thames River bridge, $7 million to replace the Miamicock River bridge in Niantic and $2 million to replace a bridge in Madison.

Polish for the Crystal

Later in the afternoon in New London, the wind was still howling, this time along the shores of the Thames River, when Courtney stopped by the Thames River Apartments to see how the New London Housing Authority will use $381,000 from the Capital Fund Program.

”This is a job that will benefit the citizens and help create jobs in our city,'' said Joseph Abrams, executive director of the authority.

The money will be used to refurbish the courtyard of the high-rise apartments on Crystal Avenue, including new playgrounds, benches and picnic tables, trees, lighting and other amenities for the residents.

”We're going to tear it all up and give people a nice place to be outside, day and night,'' Abrams said as he stood in the courtyard between the two buildings, which has not changed since the nine-story structures were erected in 1967. Original wooden benches are splintered and the playground equipment is missing pieces.

The housing authority will hire 10 New London residents immediately, preferably from low-income housing, Abrams said, to help with prep work for the project such as tearing out the old playground equipment. The jobs will be temporary but on a full-time basis, he said.

The contractor, who has yet to be hired, will be required to hire the 10 workers, Abrams said, at the same rate of pay as other landscape workers.

”It will be part of the contract,'' Abrams said. “And if they need more labor, we're going to ask they hire from the city of New London.''

Kent and Frost Landscape Architecture of Mystic is working on the plans and is expected to submit drawings in about two weeks. The project is expected to go out to bid in about three months.

”We need to make it an enjoyable and inviting place,'' said Chad Frost. “It needs to be safe and durable.''

Courtney praised Abrams for having a project that will provide jobs while updating a dilapidated area that badly needs an overhaul.

Kara Storniolo, manager of the complex, said the more than 200 kids who live at the complex with their parents deserve a better place to live and play.

”I can't wait to have a playground,'' she said. “It'll be great to have no puddles after it rains, and no trip hazards.”

Subsidizing safety

Next, Courtney visited the New London Police Department to learn where stimulus money going there might be used. The police were awarded $105,392 in early March from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, which is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Courtney also met with officers, detectives and union officials before going on a ride-along with Patrol Officer Tricia Marcaccio. Courtney told the officers he and the Obama administration believe it is important to invest in job growth as well as in public safety.

”We're doing both, to try to make sure there's no risk to the public safety during this economic downturn,” he said. “The economy is in a depression.”

Courtney said the Byrnes grant would help fill a gap in equipment funding, and said the stimulus bill also contains more than a $1 billion for the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program, which, when distributed, will not require the recipient communities to match the funds, as in the past. He reiterated that point later in a meeting with Police Chief Bruce Rinehart.

”That's what we need,” Rinehart said. “The problem with these grants is the matching requirement. Some communities just don't have it.”

Rinehart asked if the funds the city receives from the COPS grant, which is designated for hiring new officers, might also be applied to retaining officers.

”If it could be fashioned to pay existing officers, it would still be a part of the stimulus,” Rinehart said. “It would keep people off of unemployment.”

The chief expressed concern that recently hired officers might have to be laid off if the city cuts the public-safety budget.

”Some of our officers passed on jobs in other communities,” he said. “To have to let them go when they first get here would be a shame.”

When Courtney noted that school superintendents facing a similar scenario are asking the same question about money they would be receiving, Rinehart pointed out he was headed for a City Council meeting later in the evening.

”The department went backwards five or six years ago,” he said. “I hope that doesn't happen when I get to the council tonight. We have been steadily building up the department. I hope the council doesn't vote to do that. That would be a shame.”

”The goal,” Courtney said, “is to prevent that.”

March News Update

2009-03-31T19:31:00.001-07:00

As Congress Prepares Budget, Sub Suppliers Look To Secure Funding

The Day
3/6/09

Washington - It was hard to miss the victorious mood at Thursday's Submarine Industrial Base Council breakfast, where submarine builders and suppliers from across the country mingled with members of Congress to kick off a day of visits to members' offices on Capitol Hill.

Last year's record-breaking $14 billion contract for eight new Virginia-class submarines, to be built in part by Groton's Electric Boat, was cause for celebration and record-breaking turnout at the council's 17th annual meeting, organizers said.

“The feeling in the room was definitely much more upbeat,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, who spoke to the nearly 200 attendees.

But there wasn't much time to rest on their laurels. With President Barack Obama's proposed budget still vague on defense spending - and with more-immediate priorities looming in the midst of the economic crisis - industry representatives came to Washington prepared to push for two new priorities: increased funds for research and development and a program to design a replacement for the aging Ohio-class Trident submarine.

“Even though awards have been made … the new administration has put a hold on everything,” said the council's co-chairman, Dan DePompei of DRS Power Technology in Fitchburg, Mass.

“Block 3 funding [for the Virginia-class subs] is pretty safe, but R&D could be questioned.”

Obama's budget outline would set the Defense Department's basic budget, which excludes war costs, at $533.7 billion - a 4 percent increase over this year that barely keeps pace with inflation. By contrast, George W. Bush increased the department's budget by 74 percent from 2001 to 2008.

After an era of heightened spending and ambitious defense projects, council members said, they must now market their services as long-term investments in the country's economic prosperity and national security.

“There is an economic impact across the country for what we do, and we need to reinforce that message with Congress,” Electric Boat President John P. Casey said in an interview.

He said Congress and the Navy need to start thinking now about replacing the Ohio-class submarines, the first of which is set to be retired in 2029.

“We're not early, we're not late, but we need to start now,” Casey said.

Courtney said an Ohio-class redesign program would bring more entry-level design jobs to Electric Boat. In the past year, the company has added about 200 engineers and 400 designers to its work force, many of them younger employees whose ranks had thinned at Electric Boat over the years.

“It's really been exciting to see, on the design side, younger workers going through the doors in the morning,” Courtney said in an interview. “Trying to hold onto our young people is a profoundly significant issue in our state.”

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., stressed the urgency of keeping research-and-development funding levels high to keep pace with emerging naval powers like China.

“If you have any doubts about whether this is Cold War technology, just ask other nations that are eager for this technology,” Dodd said after speaking to the council. “It would be awfully shortsighted to find out the whole world was right and we were wrong.”

Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., the senior Republican on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, assured the council audience that Navy procurement programs would not face the chopping block when Congress starts debating the budget in April.

“The Appropriations Committee will be supporting these programs, and we're looking forward to that Trident submarine,” Young said to applause.

Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., cautioned that as the Navy falls behind in the number of submarines in its fleet, the submarine industry must work even harder to ensure that Congress will pay for the “complex engineering and precise craftsmanship” necessary for an updated fleet.

“We can't take it for granted that other members of Congress are as passionate and knowledgeable as we are about submarines,” said Langevin, co-chairman of the Congressional Submarine Caucus.

New Health Center On The Way For Putnam

John Penney
Norwich Bulletin
3/5/09

Putnam, Conn. — After years of wrangling by health advocates, state leaders and town officials, plans for a new family health center in town are beginning to solidify.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, announced this week Generations Family Health Center was awarded $1.12 million in federal funds for a new health center in town. The funds were part of a $2 billion national program designed to boost local health care programs for low- to moderate-income families.

“As an increased number of families feel the effects of the recession, Generations will be better positioned to help our friends and neighbors who may lose their employer-sponsored health insurance,” Courtney said.

The “New Access Point” center has been a long time coming, said Arvind Shaw, executive director of Generations, which provides northeastern Connecticut residents with medical, dental and behavioral health services through satellite offices in Danielson and Willimantic.

“I’m ecstatic,” Shaw said. “There’s a huge unmet need in this area. People without the money or ability to reach our other offices will now have access to the care they’re entitled to.”

As in its other locations, patient service costs at the planned facility will vary depending on patient income.

Shaw said the next step is to secure a building in town for renovations. He said operating the center — estimated at 8,000 square feet — will require hiring 30 additional staff, including doctors, nurses, hygienists and office personnel. Shaw said he’s reached out to local business owners to determine what properties are available.

The idea for a local health center grew from a 2001 health assessment study conducted by the Northeast District Department of Health after town officials began hearing concerns from residents about the availability of health services, Town Manager Doug Cutler said.

“This goes back quite a ways,” he said. “Even with (Day Kimball Hospital) and the primary care doctors’ offices here, it was determined there was still a need for affordable health care for residents.”

Cutler said the town will work with Generations officials during the research phase of development.

News of a new Generations office pleased Putnam resident Leon Chatelle, whose son, Leon, receives regular checkups from the organization’s mobile dental van.

“That’s just awesome,” he said. “It’ll absolutely benefit the people who live in town. (Generations) does a great job with the kids here, so I’ll definitely check it out.”

Rep. Courtney to Make $4,500 Contribution to Three Second District Food Banks

Congressman Joe Courtney announced that his campaign will make $1,500 contributions to each of three Second Congressional District food pantries and meal distribution centers serving eastern Connecticut’s families in need. The $4,500 contribution will help to alleviate the increasing burden being placed on area food centers because of the recession.

The $4,500 represents contributions Courtney received from PMA Group, which is accused of questionable operations and practices.

The following food pantries will each receive a $1,500 contribution:

St. Vincent de Paul Place, Norwich
Enfield Food Shelf, Enfield
Gemma Moran Food Distribution Center, New London

Congressman Courtney has seen first-hand the growing needs of local kitchens because of the downturn in the economy.

“If PMA Group executives have engaged in dishonest practices, then I cannot and will not accept their financial support,” stated Courtney. “However, I do not want to pass up an opportunity to use their contributions to do some good in our community.”

Agency Gets $880K To Help Region’s Jobless

Patricia Daddona

The Day

2/27/09

The U.S. Department of Labor has awarded the Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board an $880,286 federal grant to help retrain the unemployed in the region.

The Franklin-based agency received notice of the first wave of layoffs at Foxwoods Resort Casino in October and used details from that initial number, about 165 workers, as evidence of the potential magnitude of layoffs in the region, said John Beauregard, the agency's executive director.

The money will assist not only Foxwoods employees who have lost their jobs but other dislocated workers as well, Beauregard said. The funds are intended to supplement existing retraining and employment assistance programs, he added.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell and U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said these funds will help the state's economy as workers are retrained and find new jobs.

”The economic woes that have dragged down the national economy continue to take a toll on our state, including the critical tourism and entertainment sectors in southeastern Connecticut,” Rell said in a statement. “In the end, the only way for Connecticut - and the nation - to recover from this downturn is to literally 'work' our way out of it - job by job and family by family. This grant is an important step in that process.”

Courtney added: “These are our neighbors and our friends and they need our help to find new jobs, which is why I will continue to support responsible federal grant programs that alleviate the burden placed on Connecticut and help steer us out of this recession.”

The funds are administered by the U.S. Department of Labor's National Emergency Grant program. Half of the money will be provided immediately while the remaining funds will be released as the state meets specific requirements of the grant program and shows a continued need for the funds.

Ashford Volunteer Fire Department Receives Grant For Equipment

Teri Stohlberg

Reminder News

U. S. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-2 nd District) announced last week that three Connecticut fire departments have been awarded federal assistance grants for operation and safety improvements.

“As a member of the Congressional Fire Caucus, I am pleased to announce that these departments will receive federal assistance to enable them to continue their vital service to the communities that they serve,” Courtney said in a press release.

The Ashford Volunteer Fire Department is one of the departments awarded the new grant. The actual amount that the Ashford Volunteer Fire Department will receive is $30,020. Other fire districts receiving this grant are the Pawcatuck Fire District and the Chesterfield Fire Company. They will receive $54,326 and $45,667, respectively.

Wayne Fletcher, chief of the AVFD, explained that the money will be used to buy new turn-out gear. “This is in accordance with the latest NFPA regulations , which have changed in the last year… As a result of this grant, all my people will be compliant.”

The NFPA is the National Fire Protection Agency, which sets the standards for fire-fighting gear and equipment. The AVFD will need to purchase 26 new sets of turn-out gear, which, according to Fletcher, is much more lightweight and more flexible, allowing the firefighters to move more rapidly and work for longer periods of time. The new turn-out gear will have additional safety gear like holders for flashlights, a harness system and a rescue strap. “We are also getting 36 high-visibility vests, so they can be seen at accident sites,” Fletcher added.

At the request of AVFD, Courtney wrote a letter in support of their grant request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Grant Programs Director in Washington, D.C. In his letter, Courtney stated, “The average lifespan of a set of turnout gear is three to five years. The Ashford volunteer firefighters are currently working with 17 sets of gear all over five years old. Some of the sets are 20 years old.”

Although this is not the first federal grant AVFD has received, Fletcher commented, “These grants are important because little towns and little fire departments don’t have the money to replace the equipment.” Fletcher has been busy getting bids from several companies for the new turn-out gear. The Ashford Volunteer Fire Department is an all-volunteer department serving this rural town of about 4,500 residents.

Courtney has hosted numerous fire grant trainings attended by many of area fire departments. These trainings provide local departments with the assistance they need to secure funding.

“Joe Courtney is always helping the fire departments in the little towns,” Fletcher said.

In his press release announcing the grants, Courtney spoke highly of the firefighters in his district. “These men and women sacrifice their time and often their safety, to protect our homes and businesses. I congratulate each department for applying for these funds and wish them continued success in their efforts,” Courtney stated.

The Ashford Volunteer Fire Department on Route 44 in Ashford.

Stimulus May Save Teacher Jobs

Adam Bowles

Norwich Bulletin

2/20/09

The recently enacted economic stimulus bill that includes more than $1 billion in education spending nationwide is expected to save the region from drastic teacher layoffs in the next two school years.

The numbers are big, and they offset sharp state cuts and come with restrictions, which means school officials first must sort out the details and absorb the figures into their budgets.

“I don’t know what the strings are that are attached to it,” said Sandra Berardy, chairwoman of the Montville Board of Education, which next meets in March.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, praised President Barack Obama for committing to the investment.

“To see this type of infusion, people were blown away,” he said.

Already this year, school districts across the state are working on budgets that so far feature small percentage increases that may force layoffs, pay-to-play programs and requests to reopen union contracts. About 80 percent to 85 percent of a budget consists of salaries and benefits.

Richard Murray, chairman of the Killingly Board of Education, said he was relieved with Congress’ approval of the $787 billion bill, which was partly designed to offset state cuts in education spending, keep teachers on the job and maintain class sizes.

“We were looking at significant layoffs and hopefully this will mitigate some of that,” Murray said.

The stimulus package featured a $54 billion fund to prevent or restore state budget cuts with $39 billion designated for kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education. About $9 billion can be used for modernization and renovation and other priorities, and $5 billion will be used by the education secretary to encourage innovation.

Another $25 billion will go to No Child Left Behind and special education programs, and $4 billion will go to Head Start and Early Head Start early education programs and for child care programs.

Murray said local educators remain uncertain about their budgets because the state has to approve its spending plan.

Mary Graham pulled her two children, now ages 6 and 9, out of Mahan Elementary School in Norwich last year and enrolled them at St. Patrick Cathedral School. She said she respected the staff at Mahan but felt the system was overwhelmed by budget cuts and unfunded federal mandates. If the stimulus package leads to reform, Graham said she would consider re-enrolling her children in public school.

“I’m definitely watching to see how the money is going to be spent and to see if it’s going to do any good,” she said.

2nd District Congressman Lauds Stimulus, Says It Will Deliver Jobs

Don Michak

Journal Inquirer

2/18/09

People at the first few of several area “town meetings” about the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package have been supportive of the $787 billion plan because many work in the especially hard-hit building trades, according to the organizer of the sessions, U.S. Rep. Joseph D. Courtney, D-2nd District.

But Courtney, who raised eyebrows in October when he twice voted against the $700 billion “rescue” for the nation’s financial services industry, says he suspects that attendees also turned out because they were curious about his own take on the stimulus package.

The two-term lawmaker from Vernon said Tuesday that he had no qualms in backing the spending and tax cut package signed the same day by President Obama, describing it as “a much different type of plan” than the previously enacted Wall Street bailout.

He said the unprecedented stimulus was defensible because it is “aimed at the right sector of the economy,” and because it contains no earmarks.

He also said it not only provides hundreds of millions of dollars to create jobs on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, but also needy-student program and special-education funding for financially strapped school systems across Connecticut.

Courtney acknowledged that while the House had approved stimulus funding for “school modernization and construction” that also was expected to benefit local schools, the money was stripped from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act during conference committee negotiations with the Senate.

He said there’s a chance school systems still could get money for construction with approval by the governor and the General Assembly, but conceded that it was “going to be a heavy lift for local communities to redirect that money.”

Courtney said the task now facing the governor and, particularly, the Department of Transportation, is to determine within a 120-day period which projects are to be funded.

“The states are at risk of losing money if they don’t hit these timelines,” he said. “Obama’s kind of challenged them to do it.”

Courtney’s comments came as White House officials released state-by-state numbers describing the expected impacts of the stimulus package. The plan is estimated to create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, they said, including 40,900 in the Connecticut’s five congressional districts.

The most — 8,500 — would be created or saved in Courtney’s district, they said.

Courtney, meanwhile, saved his most critical comments for Republican House and Senate leaders who opposed the package, saying they had allowed ideology to blind them and were planning to make the matter the central issue in the next mid-term congressional elections.

Courtney also accused them of being out of touch with fellow Republican governors having to deal day-to-day with the worsening economic recession. Connecticut’s own Gov. M. Jodi Rell had written a letter backing the stimulus plan, he said, and other prominent Republican politicians and organizations often allied with them — such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers — had endorsed the package.

“Unlike Washington politicians, these guys are living with the problem in a real way,” he said. “The claim that Obama doesn’t have Republican support is bogus,” he added.

Courtney said that despite his support for the stimulus, he believed the Obama administration had tempered the package too much and allowed too many tax cuts so as to accommodate the minority Republicans. He said he would have preferred that it provide even more in infrastructure funding, let alone money for school construction.

“Why you wouldn’t want people out there working on school buildings is beyond me,” he said.

“But at the end of the day, the White House was really making the call here,” he added.

Courtney said he also was discouraged by some questioners who have attended his town meetings and suggested that the administration was out to control doctors with an information technology plan.

He said the proposal, which was tied to an office established in the George W. Bush administration, would give the government “no authority to tell doctors what to do.”

“Rush is out there pushing this,” he said, referring to the complaint by the conservative radio talkshow host Rush Limbaugh. “But this has got the support of the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association, and every trade group would be screaming bloody murder if there was really a problem.”

Courtney will hold a final town meeting at 2 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 28, at Asnuntuck Community College in Enfield, the last of five such sessions in his district.

Insurance Expands For Combat Vets -- But Courtney worries many do not know they are entitled to additional coverage

Jennifer Grogan

The Day

Some service members who were severely injured while serving in the current overseas conflicts are now entitled to thousands of dollars due to a change in their insurance coverage.

The problem is, many of them don't know it.

“There are hundreds, and possibly thousands, of soldiers, sailors and Marines out there who now qualify for a payment or who received a payment and are now entitled to a larger award,” said U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District. “But people have left the military and they're not in the system anymore, in terms of their whereabouts. All of the branches are scrambling to notify people.”

Congress created the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection program (TSGLI) in 2005 to provide severely injured service members with a one-time, tax-free payment to help them and their families.

Certain specific injuries were covered - permanent loss of sight, speech or hearing; amputation of a hand or foot; loss of thumb and index finger; paralysis of two or more limbs; burns; coma; or the inability to carry out daily activities due to a traumatic brain injury.

This coverage was made retroactive, allowing payments of between $25,000 and $100,000 to those injured in the theater of operations for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts since Oct. 7, 2001.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the Defense Department, recently reviewed the program and decided this past November to change the eligibility requirements and significantly expand the benefits.

Under the new rules, some people who received less than the full $100,000 may now be eligible for an additional payment and some who were denied payment may now qualify.

“Like so much about this conflict, the system was just not ready to deal with the huge human costs of this war and it needed to be adjusted,” Courtney said.

Additional injuries that are now covered include the complete paralysis of one limb; loss of four toes; loss of the big toe; and facial reconstruction due to the face or jaw having been torn away.

Other categories were expanded, with payments now available to those who lost sight for 120 days or more; lost fingers and toes; went through multiple surgeries to save a limb rather than amputate; or suffered second-degree burns to at least 20 percent of their face or body.

“These are seriously injured veterans who are facing tremendous struggles,” Courtney said. “It's obviously very important that they get all the financial assistance they need to help them transition back to civilian life.”

The program still does not cover post-traumatic stress disorder or mental illnesses, which Courtney said is the next big challenge for the system to address.

Courtney met with a group of local veterans' organizations last month, and none knew about the change to the insurance.

“There's clearly a gap in awareness out there,” he said.

Connecticut service members who have been injured since 2001 should contact the VA to explore their options, said U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. Most service members are enrolled in TSGLI through the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program.

“The TSGLI is a well-deserved benefit for those who suffer traumatic injury while serving in defense of our great nation,” Dodd said in a statement.

Linda Schwartz, the state's veterans' affairs commissioner, said veterans needing help with claims or benefits can also contact a caseworker through her office.

“The most important message is, 'you can't do it by yourself,'” she said. “Our wounded warriors think this is just paperwork but it takes years and years of following it. You need folks to help you because these things change everyday.”

The state veterans' information line is 1-866-9CT-VETS.

Thompsonville Fire Department Planning New Public Safety Building

2009-03-31T11:13:00.001-07:00

Hartford Courant

3/31/09

ENFIELD - The Thompsonville Fire Department hopes to have plans and town permits in place by June in order to qualify for federal stimulus funding toward new public safety buildings, fire officials said Monday.

"We're focusing on the importance of 'shovel ready,'" said Chief Frank Alaimo.

U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd, toured the station Monday, and said $210 million in newly available grants will be handed out in June after a rigorous application process.

"It's going to be a competitive process," Courtney said, but "I think they've got a strong argument to make."

The fire department hopes to build a new station on the corner of Pearl and Asnuntuck streets to replace the aging and cramped building that was built using federal money in 1941.

"We can be shovel ready [by June]," said David Ross, a New York architect hired by the department.

Electric Boat Eager For Chance To Repair Damaged USS Hartford

2009-03-31T11:12:00.001-07:00

Eric Gershon

Hartford Courant

3/31/09

Nuclear accidents always get noticed.

Sometimes they yield business.

In the case of the USS Hartford's March 20 collision with another Navy ship in the Persian Gulf, the opportunity might be for Electric Boat, which built the Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine in the early 1990s.

Although the Navy's shipyards get first dibs on repair work, the best-qualified government shipyards appear to be too busy to handle the extensive repairs the USS Hartford might need, improving the odds that a private shipyard will get the work, said U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District.

Electric Boat, which employs about 7,800 people in Connecticut, relies on repair work to keep workers occupied during the slower phases of new construction.

"Certainly we'd be interested in repair work, because it's such a valuable way of maintaining the defense industrial base," company spokesman Bob Hamilton said Monday. He said the company is talking with the Navy about the extent of the damage and where it could be fixed.

But EB's history with the USS Hartford, named after Connecticut's capital, hardly means the company is guaranteed the job. After running aground in the Mediterranean in 2004, for example, the Hartford was repaired in Norfolk, Va.

Space could also open up at military shipyards in Portsmouth, N.H., and Pearl Harbor.

In this case, the Navy hasn't even said for certain that the repairs would be made in the U.S. Questions remain about the submarine's ability to make the journey here from Bahrain, the Persian Gulf nation where its condition is being assessed and initial repairs are underway.

The Hartford, while submerged, collided with the USS New Orleans, an amphibious troop transporter, as the ships traveled in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, busy shipping lane between Iran and the Arabian peninsula.

Since that accident, the Navy has offered little detail about the extent of the damage or how much repairs are likely to cost. The tower, periscope and port bow plane all were damaged. The Navy emphasized that the sub's nuclear propulsion system was not damaged.

Still, photographs of the damage shocked Courtney, whose district includes Groton.

"It took a huge hit," he said, having reviewed photographs of the damaged Hartford. "Stuff must have been flying all over the place."

About 15 sailors were hurt in the accident, none seriously.

For now, EB's biggest advantage over rival shipyards appears to be space for doing the work.

"The timing of the dry dock availability is very fortuitous for Connecticut right now," Courtney said.

State Residents Due Tax Refunds

2009-03-31T11:11:00.000-07:00

Metro Networks

3/31/09

(Washington, DC) -- Thousands of state residents may have a payout due them from Uncle Sam and might not even know it. Congressman Joe Courtney is getting the word out. Around 16-thousand who did not file 2005 income tax returns may be leaving a total of 18-million-dollars on the table. Courtney is urging those residents who had taxes withheld for 2005 but weren't required to file to go back and check their records. He says a number of low-income workers may not have claimed the earned income tax credit. It's estimated the average refund is over 650-dollars. For more information, taxpayers should call the IRS help line at 800-829-1040.

Hebron Gets $80,000 Grant

2009-03-31T11:10:00.001-07:00

Journal Inquirer

3/28/09

HEBRON — The Hebron Volunteer Fire Department received an $80,000 federal grant from the Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Rep. Joseph D. Courtney, D-2nd District, secured the money through the federal Assistance for Firefighters Program.

The total amount allocated for Hebron firefighters is $79,951. The grant is given to fire departments and medical emergency responders.

Hartford Courant Editorial on Federal Foreclosure Funds

2008-11-29T20:21:00.000-08:00

Unfair Allocation
Foreclosure Aid • State plan would direct federal money to too few towns
Published: November 30, 2008

U.S. Rep. Joseph D. Courtney is on firm ground in objecting to the way state officials plan to allocate $25 million in federal funds sent to Connecticut to shore up neighborhoods hit hard by home foreclosures and abandonments.

Under a plan drafted by the state Department of Economic and Community Development, the lion's share of the money would go to only seven of the state's largest cities — none of which are in Mr. Courtney's distressed district in eastern Connecticut. Under the federal law, states or localities are to use the money to buy foreclosed homes and rehabilitate them to restore property values in struggling neighborhoods.

It appears that the DECD draft proposal would allocate the money based on the largest numbers of foreclosures and delinquencies and not, as the law seems to require, on the greatest percentage of foreclosures in areas of need. Mr. Courtney noted last week that towns like Plainfield, which is in his district and has the highest rate of foreclosures in the state, are out of luck under the DECD proposal.

Towns with high foreclosure rates are every bit as fragile as big cities with higher raw numbers of foreclosures. Mr. Courtney was right to urge Gov. M. Jodi Rell to "reallocate the money so that eastern Connecticut towns are able to rebound from the foreclosure crisis as well."

A more equitable distribution of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program money would include cities with high numbers of foreclosures as well as smaller municipalities with the highest foreclosure rates.