Joe Courtney

“I am introducing a bill to keep the new Air Force One plane in the Air Force. The plane belongs to the taxpayers, not Donald Trump. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars fixing it up and training pilots. It is almost new and can fly for many more years. It should not be put into a Trump museum.”

“Mr. Speaker, on September 4, President Trump was asked about the future of the Qatari Air Force One plane, which, after a messy rollout in July, he flew on to Ireland this past weekend and said: ``I haven’t made a decision, but it will probably go to the museum. It is scheduled to go to the museum.’’ Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Air Force executive airlift programs, I will remind the House that this aircraft is not the property of any one person, including the President of the United States. That plane is the property of the U.S. Government and U.S. taxpayers, and it is under the control of the U.S. Air Force. It is a plane the U.S. taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last years to retrofit prior to its maiden flight to Turkiye for the NATO Summit. After it was discovered by the Secret Service that the plane had serious vulnerabilities and the President flew home on one of the older Air Force Ones, the Qatari plane went into another overhaul and received maxed out upgrades, as the President said, which cost even more taxpayer funds. Just a few days ago, it was announced that the Air Force had contracted a new pilot simulator training program for the Qatari plane to the tune of $45.3 million. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. taxpayer has huge skin in the game regarding the future of this plane. It is also clear that this plane has ample long-term service life left in it. At the time it was gifted to the Air Force, it had only 800 hours of flight time, which is a fraction of the normal full-service life of a comparable Boeing 747 jet. Given its low mileage and all the expenditure of government money and training, the notion that this plane should be mothballed in a couple years and donated to a Trump museum is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. Mr. Speaker, some may point to the example of the Air Force One plane at the Reagan Library as justification for President Trump’s claim that he has the right to abscond with this plane after he leaves office. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Reagan Library plane was in Air Force service for 13 years after he left office in 1988 and served President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Clinton, and President George W. Bush until it was decommissioned in 2001. The plane then went through a well-established legal process for transfer of excess Federal property that President Reagan had no control over, which is designed to protect the interests of the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, everything about this Qatari gifted plane has been problematic: the unanswered questions of a foreign emolument, the lack of transparency on the cost of the initial retrofit, the rocky maiden voyage to Turkiye, and the President’s repeated claims of ownership and control of the plane, which by law he does not have. It is clear Congress needs to intervene to prohibit any unlawful attempt to send it ``to the museum.’’ Today, Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith and I will be introducing the Safeguarding Taxpayer Investment for Executive Airlift Act, which will very simply prohibit the transfer of the Qatari Air Force One, known as VC-25B bridge aircraft, from the possession of the U.S. Air Force. As I have made clear today, after all the money and work invested in the retrofit of this practically brand-new Boeing 747, as well as the new $45 million pilot training contract that the Air Force just announced, the country and the American taxpayer deserve to get its money’s worth from this plane. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, that is not too much to ask. Its service life will last for years. Just as the Air Force One plane that flew for over a decade after Ronald Reagan left office, this Air Force One should be used to benefit the Nation and not be used as a vanity project. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about exercising congressional stewardship of property that belongs to the U.S. taxpayer, and it should be easy for every Member of this Chamber to support. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, it asserts what is both legally the right thing to do, but also morally the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and Ranking Member Smith to cosponsor this commonsense measure.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“Former Connecticut Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman died recently. She spent many years serving our state, working on public schools, health care, and the budget. I am asking the House to honor her life and send condolences to her family.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with the House the sad news of the loss of one of the State of Connecticut’s finest public servants, former Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman, of Tolland, Connecticut. The news of her sudden passing on August 12 was met with universal sorrow from all corners of her beloved State, from the political leaders on both sides of the aisle and from people of all walks of life with whom she worked, always trying to help, particularly those in need and those whose problems she fixed over and over again. Nancy’s epic journey of public service began as a PTA mom in Tolland, advocating for high-quality public education at a time when her own kids were enrolled in Tolland’s public schools. She was so effective that she was encouraged to run for a seat on the school board, which she did and won. That began an extraordinary string of political success that eventually took her to the highest levels of State government. In 1986, she ran for a vacant seat in the Connecticut House of Representatives in a district next door to where I live, and at the same time, coincidentally, I was also running as a first-time candidate. We both prevailed and the following January were assigned our desks in the Connecticut House Chamber next to each other, which began a long and fruitful friendship, both politically and personally. She shortly became chair of the Education Committee and presided over one of the most difficult, contested issues in the State, namely allocating public school funding. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, it is an issue where you cannot please all the people all the time. Nancy never shrank from this task, and because of her patience and basic decency in her interactions with all her colleagues, the final result of her tenacious effort always earned respect and support. She carried that trademark skill in her campaigns for statewide office, with her election as State comptroller in 1998 and her election as Lieutenant Governor in 2010. The office of comptroller is not always well understood by Connecticut voters, but it carries great responsibilities, including administering the largest health and pension plans in the State for active and retired State employees and their dependents. She, once again, bore down into the nitty-gritty of price negotiation with private vendors, promoting wellness programs for State workers and acquiring valuable knowledge of the private health insurance market. That experience came into good use when, as Lieutenant Governor, she was assigned the task of implementing the Affordable Care Act as it was rolled out in 2014. This was no easy lift. As many will painfully recall, the Federal ACA exchange, healthcare.gov, in 2014 was completely overwhelmed and took over a year before millions of Americans were finally connected to affordable health coverage. Connecticut, however, opted under the law to operate its own exchange and, under Nancy’s experienced hands, designed and initiated a data system that was completely functional on day one. I remember well in 2014 going to enrollment fairs around the Second Congressional District and witnessing the successful completion of healthcare coverage for constituents who, in many cases because of preexisting medical conditions, had not been insured for most of their adult lives. For them, it was an emotional, life-changing event. Although Nancy was not physically present at all those fairs, there is no question that her handiwork created joy, and the impact and spirit of her service were in that room. Mr. Speaker, Nancy’s successful stewardship of the ACA rollout was not her only achievement as Lieutenant Governor. She was truly a partner, not an acolyte, to Governor Dan Malloy. Their passage of the Connecticut State budget in 2017, with fiscal guardrails, established the pathway to budget stability that reversed decades of chronic deficits into a string of surpluses and has completely transformed Connecticut’s public finances into positive territory. Her record in public service, though, was not only defined by good administration and policy but also by the way she carried herself in high position, showing respect and empathy to all that she ever came into contact with. It didn’t matter whether a person was a constituent or not, or what political party they belonged to, she was warm and polite and found ways to build connections and, in most cases, friendships. It goes without saying, her example is a powerful one, in 2026, when polarization and political tribalism is far too prevalent. She did, however, show favoritism, and that was to her beautiful family: her husband, Michael, of 59 years; her two daughters, Stacey Papa and Meryl Baldwin, and their husbands, Steve and Bill; their five grandchildren; and many more relations who are carrying a heavy burden of grief because of her passing. They did have great support on August 16th when hundreds and hundreds of her admirers and friends showed up at her wake, expressing their love and appreciation for the contributions Nancy’s family made to her impactful life. I particularly thank the town manager of Tolland, Brian Foley, who showed so much care and compassion to help Nancy’s family. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in a similar recognition and express our condolences to Nancy’s family for their loss.”

“Vote no on this proposal. Towns with military bases do not get enough federal money to pay for educating military kids. We should not start new education programs until we fully pay these towns back.”

“Mr. Chair, I think Congresswoman Tokuda did a very nice job in terms of laying out the reality of what is actually going on in communities where military installations and military bases exist. Those are tax exempt properties where the communities are, again, more than glad to educate the children of military servicemembers. They have to find a way to finance the cost of that education. Unfortunately, the existing programs in place today, DoDEA and Impact Aid, fall short in terms of making sure that those communities are fairly reimbursed. Mr. Chair, we are not in a place where there should even be a discussion about starting new funding programs for education paid for by the taxpayer until we keep the promise to those communities that we are going to reimburse the cost of educating military schoolchildren. For that reason, Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no’’ vote from all our colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.”