Category: Connecticut
Connecticut Delegation Reacts to the State of the Union
WASHINGTON –The Connecticut congressional delegation reacted along partisan lines to President Bush’s State of the Union speech last night.
Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-5) commended Bush’s commitments to the war on terror and health care while Democratic Sens. Joseph Lieberman Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), and Rep. John Larson (D-1) blasted Bush’s stance on spending, taxes and the economy.
In his speech, Bush said that “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities” were still being identified in Iraq and that “the world without Saddam Hussein’s regime is a better and safer place.” Johnson praised Bush’s efforts in a written statement. “We have vigorously pursued the war on terror, and with our allies we have rid the world of a murderous and dangerous tyrant. Saddam Hussein will never again threaten the freedoms of the Iraqi people, deny them the economic opportunity they deserve or threaten the peace and stability of the world,” she said.
Dodd disagreed. “Though all of us were glad to see Saddam Hussein captured, the threat of terrorism continues to loom large and the President has failed to provide adequate resources to our homeland defenders and exert leadership in the world community to combat terrorism more effectively,” he said in a written statement
Bush emphasized finding ways to reduce federal health care costs instead of pouring more money into government-sponsored programs.
Johnson, who helped write the Medicare Prescription Drug Act that Bush signed into law last month, said: “I’m glad the President has injected new thinking into addressing the crisis of the uninsured, moving this important issue to top priority status. Over 250,000 Connecticut residents live and work without health insurance, threatening their health and financial security.”
But Lieberman blasted Bush’s health care and Social Security announcements in a statement after the speech. “After his stealth efforts to privatize Medicare, he’s deceptively trying to sell the privatization of Social Security as if he were just giving workers another 401(k).”
Bush pinpointed the tax breaks Congress enacted at his behest as the reason for the economy’s turnaround. “This economy is strong, and growing stronger,” Bush said.
While Bush maintained that manufacturing activity is increasing, Larson said in an interview, “We continue to shed jobs in this economy.”
Lieberman lambasted Bush’s tax cut and job-growth plans. “There’s still no real plan to create lasting growth and good jobs, just more tax cuts for people who don’t need them — comforting the comfortable and once again leaving the middle class in the lurch,” he said. “The fact is, we have a more realistic chance of finding aliens on Mars than making this fantastical, fiscally reckless plan work.”
Larson agreed that the tax cuts were unfair. “They’re calling to send more money to the wealthiest one percent.”
Connecticut Delegation Reacts to Ricin Scare
WASHINGTON -- Members of the Connecticut congressional delegation and several senators responded on Tuesday to the discovery of ricin, a poison found in Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's mailroom Monday afternoon.
In a press conference at the Capitol, Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said that none of the workers who might have been exposed to the white powder had become ill, and that ricin is not contagious.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), whose office received a letter containing anthrax in late 2001, said, "This is going to take some time to put the pieces together."
Capitol police said that all unopened mail would be removed from the Capitol complex within the next few days. Police said they have found no evidence that the ricin has spread through the Senate ventilation system as had the anthrax mailed to Daschle, then majority leader, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.).
All three Senate office buildings were closed Tuesday and Senate hearings postponed.
But despite the closures, Congress remained in session and House meetings continued as scheduled.
Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-5), said she attended a Ways and Means Committee hearing on President Bush's proposed budget Tuesday afternoon and that her staff was in the office.
"It's an unfortunate reality of working in Washington that it has become the target of such cowardly attacks," Johnson said in a statement. "We're doing everything possible to keep the nation's Capitol open for business without jeopardizing people's lives."Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) said in a statement, "Anyone -- be they terrorists or criminals -- who would use these types of toxins as weapons needs to [be] dealt with in the harshest fashion and swiftly brought to justice."
Dr. Charles McKay, associate medical director of the Connecticut Poison Control Center , said that unlike anthrax, ricin cannot multiply and spread through the air.
He described ricin as a "protein structure" that prohibits cells in the body from creating proteins. While anthrax is an infectious agent that spreads bacteria through the body, ricin simply stops the cells from functioning, McKay said.
Ricin is most powerful when injected. McKay said that less than a milligram, which is smaller than a pencil point, would cause death in two to three days when injected directly into the body.
Symptoms of ricin exposure include weakness, diarrhea, low blood pressure and fever, McKay said. Victims injected with ricin "can end up with what looks like multiple organ failure," he said.
But because ricin cannot multiply, it is "not very effective" as a large-scale biological weapon, he said. "It would take so much that it would be completely impractical," to use in a terrorist attack, McKay said.
While there is no known antidote for ricin, McKay said that all previous known deaths have come from direct injection, not through inhalation or ingestion. It would take a much larger amount to kill someone through inhalation, McKay said. "If you ate an ounce it would probably kill you. But it would have to get into your system," he said.
McKay said that his center has not changed any procedures and everyone working there is staying calm. "Hopefully everybody else is too," McKay said.
A "powder-like" substance was also found Tuesday in a postal distribution center in Wallingford , Conn. , said William Gerrish, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Public Health. The substance was still being tested at a facility in Hartford late Tuesday. Anthrax was found at the same Wallingford distribution center in 2001, and authorities suspect a 94-year-old woman died of anthrax after receiving mail processed at the center.
"Sadly our state previously had to deal with tragic consequences from anthrax attacks," Dodd said, "and it goes without saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the workers there as they deal with these anxious moments."
State Democrats Rise to Challenge Incumbent Simmons
WASHINGTON -Democrats in Connecticut 's second congressional district need to have a new favorite color this year - green.
Dollar-green.
To have a fighting chance against Republican incumbent Rob Simmons, the two men competing for the Democratic nomination need to have a lot of it.
According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Simmons, now in his second term, started the year with $518,392 in his war chest -- almost five times as much as Democratic challengers James Sullivan and Shaun McNally had between them.
Simmons raised $208,218 during the last three months of 2003, bringing his total receipts so far to $816,241, the FEC reported. That included contributions of $415,705 from individuals and $363,169 from political action committees, or PACs.
So far Sullivan has raised $70,948, all of it in the final three months of last year. Individual contributors gave him $52,570 and PACs donated $14,378. As of Dec. 31, he had $75,097 in cash on hand.
"I've been working since the day I entered the race . to get into a credible position," the former Norwich alderman said. "I just want to raise enough money to be competitive."
McNally raised $50,212 last year, with $46,863 of it coming from individuals. He had $34,732 cash on hand as the year began.
McNally said his big fundraising push didn't start until January. "I spend three to four hours a day on the phone asking people for money, and it will increase to four or five hours a day," he said.
The former state representative from Norwich said that because of his "strong ideological beliefs," he will refuse funds from business PACs, labor PACs and what he called "special-interest PACs."
As a result, he will have to raise all his money from individuals, who are limited to contributions of $2,000 for the primary and another $2,000 for the general election, or from the Democratic Party. PACs can contribute $5,000 for each election under a new campaign-finance law.
Simmons has raised 87 percent more than the average $436,177 collected by House members seeking reelection, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that monitors campaign finances. His spokesman said that's simply the result of preparing to campaign for a third term.
"When you run every two years you have to work on fundraising on a regular basis," spokesman Eric Janney explained. But all 435 House members are up for reelection every two years.
Simmons does have to run in a district that, two years ago, hosted one of the 30 most expensive House races in the country, according to the FEC. Simmons and his Democratic challenger, Joseph Courtney, collectively spent nearly $3 million, with Simmons spending 50 percent more than Courtney, the Center for Responsive Politics reported.
Simmons performed the unusual feat of defeating a 20-year incumbent -- Democrat Sam Gejdenson -- in 2000, by a narrow margin of 51-49 percent.
Although he was targeted for defeat by House Democrats, Simmons easily won reelection in 2002, beating Courtney 54-46 percent after redistricting removed a number of Democrats from the voting rolls. State Democratic Party officials assert that Simmons won because of cold, hard cash.
"Rob Simmons himself had over $2 million," said state Democrat Party executive director Leslie O'Brien. "And as the incumbent, he had huge amounts of special-interest money coming into the district. It gave him a leg up in the race, and made it so that Joe Courtney had a significant challenge to overcome."
Courtney, she said, "had millions of dollars literally working against him."
But money might not entirely explain Simmons' popularity. He beat Gejdenson in an expensive race in 2000, but not only did the Democrat spend more, the district voted overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore.
Still, O'Brien said, this year's Democratic hopefuls need to focus on fundraising as a top priority.
Sullivan agreed. "In this sort of environment, it is very difficult to outpace any Republican incumbent, certainly from the amount of money that they are able to raise," he said. "It's a million-dollar ticket, that's clear."
The Simmons campaign says it is "getting geared up for another election."
"We're keeping our head down and working hard," Janney said. "Our fundraising is not dramatically different from what it was in the past. Obviously we can't speak for our opponents, but we think that we're on track hopefully to raise a similar amount [as in 2002].
"We are pleased with our progress, but when you are in a targeted race you have to work hard to raise funds."
Sullivan registered with the FEC as a candidate for the 2002 congressional race, but withdrew after raising $112,850. McNally also registered and raised just $400 in individual contributions before he, too, left the race.
Shays Raises Less As Incumbency Lengthens
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON— Rep. Christopher Shays, (R-4), one of the prime sponsors of a new law to limit campaign contributions, has raised nearly one-quarter less than other Congress members seeking reelection this year, financial tallies show.
The reason: he receives little from political action committees, the organizations whose influence Shays sought to restrict.
Through the end of last year, Shays had collected $334,042 to spend on his November election bid, compared to an average of $436,177 by all House members seeking reelection, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors campaign finances.
Political action committees, or PACs, gave Shays a mere $47,500, or 14 percent of his contributions, the center reported. On average, PACs have given incumbent House members $183,016 for elections Nov. 2.
Still, Shays has $150,000 more in the bank for the race for his ninth term than he had at this point in 2002, according to the Federal Election Commission.
“We raise what is required to get our story out—nothing more, nothing less,” said Shays’ campaign manager, Michael Sohn.
Shays reported to the FEC that he has $195,730 cash on hand for his reelection bid. The average House member up for reelection has $480,923 cash on hand, the center reported.
But Shays, who first was elected with 57 percent of the vote in 1987, has never had a tough contest. In 2002, Shays beat Democrat Stephanie Sanchez with 64 percent of the vote. Shays raised $975,551 and spent $919,160; Sanchez raised $118,970 and spent $110,699.
This year, Democrats Diane Goss Farrell, first selectwoman of Westport, and John Peter Imre are vying for the seat. Neither has filed a financial disclosure report with the FEC.
Imre challenged Shays in the 2000 election with a shoestring budget of $769, mostly from his own pocket. Farrell has never run for Congress, but has served as Westport’s first selectwoman since 1997.
Republicans say Shays does not need to worry about the upcoming election, even though he has less money than other incumbents.
“Mr. Shays is tremendously popular in his district and won the last election with something like 64 percent of the vote,” said Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “He should have no problem in November.”
Shays has become known nationally as one of the prime sponsors of the Shays-Meehan bill, which President Bush signed in 2002. The controversial legislation, also known by its Senate name, McCain-Feingold, took aim at PACs’ unlimited spending privileges, which Shays said gave them unfair influence over members of Congress, influence most individual donors could not afford.
The new law, which took effect following the 2002 elections, bans unlimited “soft” money, which corporations, unions and PACs formerly gave political parties in increments of $100,000, $250,000, or more. Now, PACs can give only $5,000 to each candidate per election cycle. At the same time, individual donations were doubled to $2,000 per election.
While Shays has received little money from PACs, individual contributors gave him $286,205 this past year, accounting for nearly 86 percent of his funding. On average, individuals gave House members running for reelection $237,971, the Center for Responsive Politics reported.
Shays benefited greatly from his membership on the powerful Budget Committee, as well as the Financial Services Committee. Individuals and PACs associated with the finance, insurance and real estate industries contributed more than $50,000 to his campaign, according to the center. Shays also sits on the Homeland Security and Government Reform Committees.
Bush Bid to Cut Arts Spending Draws Criticism
WASHINGTON - President Bush's proposal to abolish federal Arts in Education grants has prompted Connecticut school administrators and arts educators to question the administration's commitment to education.
"It's hard to imagine that an administration promoting the No Child Left Behind Act would cut arts education," said Ken Kahn, executive director of the Greater Hartford Arts Council.
"Studies overwhelmingly show that the arts help kids with learning - with literacy and other skills," he said. "It looks to be cutting education in general when you cut $35 million from the Arts in Education budget."
Bush's proposed budget for the year that begins Oct. 1 would cut the government's entire $35 million contribution to Arts in Education, a program that gives states money to distribute to local school districts based on need.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, administration officials decided to do away with Arts in Education-just one of 38 education programs it wants to wipe out-because they didn't think the grants were effective enough.
"Arts in Education is proposed for elimination consistent with the administration's policy to do away with small-term categorical programs with limited impact in order to fund higher priorities," spokesman Jim Bradshaw said.
"There are only so many ways to cut the budget pie," Bradshaw said. "This program certainly provides benefits, but there are higher priorities that we are proposing to fund."
Bradshaw said, for instance, that the administration had proposed to increase funding for special education by $1 billion and adding another $1 billion for schools in low-income neighborhoods as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. That law, the hallmark of Bush's education policy, mandates that schools routinely test students, starting in the third grade. It funnels extra money to schools deemed to be "failing," but then penalizes them if they don't improve.
Bush has proposed eliminating the Arts in Education program before. Congress disagreed, and for this year, in fact, increased funds for the program by $1.3 billion.
The No Child Left Behind Act carries its own controversy, notably because it calls for $7.2 billion more for fiscal 2005 than Bush is proposing. A study last month by the Center on Education Policy, which monitors national programs, also reported that the majority of states have found the act's requirements to be overly stringent, with its demands straining their already limited funds.
"When dollars become tight, school districts have to make decisions around what to cut, and non-mandated programs are the first to go," said spokesman Tom Murphy, of the Connecticut Department of Education. "A nd those include art and music and extracurricular activities, and talented and gifted programs."
The Bush administration contends the proposed budget cut will not have a discernible impact on arts programs, since the amount of money that actually ends up in classrooms is small.
"The federal government only provides 10 to 15 percent of all the education funding around the country," with the rest coming from state and local sources, Bradshaw said.
Local arts councils, faced with their own monetary constraints, say they aren't up to the task of replacing the loss of federal funds.
" If schools want more arts in the education, it will have to come from the taxpayers," the Greater Hartford Arts Council's Kahn said. "Passing on the burden of localities seems to be a favorite ploy of local government at the moment, and has been for a while."
The council "can't just compensate for that out of our budget at the moment," Kahn said. "It will be much more stressful for the local levels. It's a big problem."
Lori Robishaw, spokeswoman for the national organization Americans for the Arts, said, "If these particular funds aren't there, it makes it that much more challenging for arts organizations concerned with arts education, and sets us further back."
"It's definitely going to affect the schools," agreed Robert Carroll, assistant executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools.
That is especially true for schools in the Hartford and Bridgeport districts, said Scott Shuler, an arts education specialist for the Connecticut Department of Education.
" Hartford , for several years, has [had] a grant to support professional development for its music teachers," Shuler said. "There is a significant financial impact on the state of Connecticut if that budget line were to be eliminated. It's particularly critical because there is a shortage nationwide, particularly in Connecticut , in music teachers. This funding has helped bring young teachers along and keep them in their school districts.
"It would have a very negative impact on Connecticut if that money were eliminated from the budget."
###
Johnson, Larson Add to Campaign Accounts
WASHINGTON- Political action committee contributions to Nancy Johnson (R-5) totaled more than $600,000 last year, putting her behind only Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Il) and Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) as the House member with the most PAC contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Johnson, chairwoman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, received most of her campaign money from health insurance companies and private physicians, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
Because of her committee post, "it's not surprising she is attracting a lot of PAC money,"
said Sheila Krumholz, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that monitors campaign finances.
Reports released last month show Johnson raised just over $1 million in her campaign fund in 2003, including $200,000 in the last quarter of the year. As the new year began, she had: cash on hand of $897,432.
Johnson's $1,012,614 in contributions to date, Krumholz said, was "a standout figure," especially with eight months remaining to raise money before the November election.
Johnson is running for re-election for the 12 th time. She won in 2002 with 54 percent of the vote, running against Democratic congressman James Maloney in the re-districted Fifth District.
"She's had tough races before and is a fairly popular representative, so it's not surprising" that she might want to build up her campaign war chest "to ward off serious challengers," Krumholz said.
Johnson faces two Democratic challengers this time: Paul Vance Jr., president of the Waterbury Board of Aldermen, and Robert L. Marconi, the Connecticut assistant attorney general. Both said they have not yet raised the $5,000 necessary before filing an FEC report. Marconi said he will formally announce his intent to run next month. In the meantime, he plans to meet with Connecticut Democratic town committees to get his name on the political radar.
"It's incredibly difficult to start raising money if nobody knows who you are," Marconi said.
Republicans running for re-election this year have raised on average of $469,741, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Of Johnson's total contributions, 64 percent came from PACs, and 94.5 percent of the PAC donations came from businesses, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Krumholz said of Johnson's PAC money, "It's more than the average candidate has raised in any kind of contributions. That's definitely a hefty figure at this point in the cycle."
Brian Schubert, Johnson's press secretary, called the PAC donors a "broad coalition." They gave to Johnson because they support her agenda, Schubert said.
Rep. John Larson (D-1) raised $37,491 in the latest filing period, bringing his total receipts to $151,860. As 2004 began, he had $128,955 in cash on hand. A variety of donors contributed, including attorneys and manufacturing companies. The American Postal Workers Union gave $5,000. Larson is running for his 4 th term after winning 67 percent of the vote in 2002.
Through Dec. 31, 55 percent of Larson's contributions came from individuals and 43 percent came from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
John Halstead of Wethersfield recently announced his candidacy against Larson, but so far has reported no activity to the FEC.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (D-Conn.) contributed $1,000 to Larson in 2002 through his Responsibility/Opportunity/Community PAC, but so far no contributions from that PAC have been reported for the 2004 election.
Shays Faults Colleges for Federal Grants’ Ineffectiveness
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON— Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4) Wednesday defended President Bush’s decision not to increase the size offederal grants for college students, saying that boosting federal aid would only spur universities to raise tuition and reduce other scholarships and loans.
“I am interested in grants for students—I have a daughter that’s going to be applying to school soon—but isn’t it a fact that just as we increase the Pell Grants and other grants, the administrations just raise their tuitions?” Shays said at a House Budget Committee hearing. “So who is getting these grants, the students or the university?”
Bush has proposed holding the line on Pell Grants, the federal government’s scholarship program for students primarily from low-income families. The president’s budget proposal for fiscal 2005, which could be changed by Congress, would maintain the current maximum of $4,050 per grant, but increase the number of grants issued by as many as 400,000.
Under Bush’s proposal, Pell Grants would be awarded to about 5.3 million undergraduates in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Unlike student loans, Pell Grants do not have to be repaid.
Following Shays’ comments, university officials and their representatives sought to demonstrate they have not raised tuition in response to increased federal support for students.
“The facts would show that Mr. Shays is completely wrong,” said Terry Hartle, the senior vice president of the American Council on Education, an organization that represents universities nationwide. “The Department of Education has investigated the relationship between federal student aid and college tuition increases and found no relationship whatsoever.
“Indeed, the only factor they could associate with college tuition increases is state support,” Hartle said in an interview. “In other words, as state support goes down—tuition goes up. Ironically, periods of increasing Pell Grant support areassociated, on the face of things, with a slower increase of tuition. Mr. Shays would like to posit just the opposite.”
But Education Secretary Roderick Paige agreed with Shays that increasing federal aid would help universities rather than students.
“Our role at the U.S. Department of Education is to supplement state and local efforts, not to supplant them,” Paige said.
Despite his criticism of universities, Shays, the Budget Committee’s vice chairman, said he believes Pell Grants are an important asset to students who receive them.
"Pell Grants help students help themselves,” Shays said in a statement issued following the hearing. “They allow millions of American students to pursue an undergraduate degree they otherwise would not be able to afford. Pell Grants have a proven record of success, and I support the president's commitment to this program."
Paige said at the hearing that Bush had proposed increasing spending on the Pell Grant program by $856 million, for a total of $12.9 billion in fiscal 2005.He said the increase would mean more than 1 million additional students would receive Pell Grants next year than when the president took office.
Paige said the proposed increase included $33 million for a program called Enhanced Pell Grants for State Scholars, which provides $1,000 each for low-income freshmen who took challenging courses in high school.
Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, countered that the proposed spending increase was simply “rhetoric” because the administration had failed to compensate for inflation and tuition increases.
“The Bush administration has thrown around rhetoric that they have increased funding in this program by billions. It’s just that—rhetoric,” Miller said. He said the grant is worth $500 less than the maximum grant in 1975-76 when adjusted for inflation.
Bush’s proposal, Miller said, “fails to make college more affordable because if fails to address rising college costs, the declining buying power of college grants or the rising debt carried by college students.”
Miller’s spokesman, Tom Kiley, said Pell Grants originally were intended to cover three-fourths the cost of tuition but now cover less than half.
“The idea that taking away the Pell Grant would not be detrimental to the students who depend on it is, frankly, a ridiculous one,” Kiley said.
Yearly tuition for state residents averages $4,694 a year at four-year public colleges and universities and $19,710 at four-year private institutions, according to the College Board, a not-for-profit organization that provides students with information on postsecondary schools and creates standardized tests.
Annual tuition for the University of Connecticut is $4,730 for state residents and $14,425 for out-of-state students.
Is Organized Crime an Indian Gaming Problem
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON --Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4) is sponsoring legislation that calls for an investigation into the influence of non-Native American investors and organized crime on Indian gaming.
He introduced the bill last week, one day before the federal government formally recognized the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, a move that could clear the way for the Connecticut-based tribe to open a casino in the state.
"With so much at stake, casino development interests are often willing to spend huge sums of money on the chance that they can influence the process," Shays said in a statement Wednesday. "To make sure the federal recognition process is accountable and transparent, it is important to know all the interests in play, including who is financing the petitioners and any possible connections to organized crime."
Chief Richard Velky of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation would not disclose where his tribe gets its financial backing.
Fred DeLuca, the founder and chief executive officer of Subway Restaurants, financed the Schaghticokes for an undisclosed period of time, according to his spokespeople. They said the investment was personal and not related to the restaurant.
DeLuca invested in the Tribal Nation under an agreement that he would be repaid with a profit, a source close to the Indian gaming industry said. DeLuca also wished to help develop the Bridgeport area, which is where he founded Subway Restaurants, and thought bringing Indian gaming to the area would provide an economic boom, the source said.
DeLuca did not return several calls requesting comment.
Other key financial backers of the Schaghticokes include John C. Ellis, formerly a catcher for the New York Yankees and the Cleveland Indians, and former state Rep. Dean P. Markham of Markham Associates. The two established the Native American Gaming Fund to raise money for a Schaghticoke casino, according to the Hartford Courant. In a telephone interview Thursday, Ellis confirmed his membership in the fund, but referred further questions to the fund's attorney, Stephen A. Zrenda. He declined comment.
Velky said his tribe solicits funds only from potential backers who have the best interests of the tribe in mind. He said non-Native American investors do not exert undue influence over the Schaghticokes. "The only pressure on the tribe was relieved last week once the Bureau of Indian Affairs recognized us," Velky said. "We would never ask any person who would use financial pressure to help us out." Following last year's murder of prominent Middletown businessman Joseph Mazotta, whose father had ties to the Genovese crime family, local police began investigating the Mazotta family's investments in the Schaghticoke Indian tribe, the Hartford Courant reported. The Middletown police department declined comment.
"They are not my investors," Velky said of the Mazzota family. He said the tribe had to steer clear of any potentially troublesome backers in order to gain federal recognition.
"You think it's tough to get federal recognition? Velky asked. "Well, the [National Indian Gaming] Commission has a tougher screening process for financial backers. If an Indian tribe ever tried anything like [working with organized crime], I don't think they'd cut the mustard for the federal authorities." Traditionally, the gambling industry has attracted criminal interests because it involves many undocumented financial transactions, said Philip N. Hogen, the commission's chairman. "The good news for tribal gaming is the whole industry of gaming has evolved since its beginnings, when mobs and organized crime influences were the rule and not the exception," Hogen said. "These days firms on Wall Street can and do invest in gaming."
Guy Michael Brown, the former head of Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard , Conn. , and former consultant to the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, said organized crime factions did attempt to do business with that casino.
"There were two or three attempts to do business with us," Brown said. "The Connecticut state police and the FBI took care of it, though-one was a credit card scheme that resulted in many arrests."
But Velky said the Schaghticokes are looking forward not to casinos but to improved health care and a new 10-unit housing facility for their elders -- just a few of the perks, he said, that will flow from federal recognition.
"We have always felt the social programs are more important than any financial ones," Velky said.
Connecticut Supports Lieberman’s Decision to Return Home
WASHINGTON -A day after he quit the presidential race, Sen. Joseph Lieberman served up his "cup of Joe" in his native Connecticut Wednesday.
"Running for president was a great journey," Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, told supporters. "But it is very good to be home."
Lieberman, 61, dropped out of the race Tuesday night after finishing poorly in most of that day's seven primaries and caucuses.
The three-term Connecticut senator placed fifth in the New Hampshire primary last week but refused to withdraw before Tuesday in the hope that he could win Delaware . Instead, he came in a distant second, behind frontrunner John Kerry, with only 11 percent of the vote.
Lieberman spoke to his supporters in a "Farewell Rally" Wednesday afternoon in Hartford . He personally addressed his fellow Connecticut lawmakers, Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-3 rd District, and John Larson, D-1 st District, thanking them for their "selfless dedication to my campaign."
Lieberman also thanked his colleague, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., calling him his "best friend in the world."
Lieberman was the only one of this year's Democratic presidential candidated to have run on a national ticket -- he was Al Gore's vice presidential running mate in 2000 -which initially gave his campaign a boost. The Gore-Lieberman ticket won the popular vote but lost the election in the Electoral College, making Lieberman a confident candidate when he entered the 2004 race in late 2002.
But what Lieberman prided as his "mainstream voice" never caught on with voters.
Connecticut officials from both parties welcomed Lieberman back from his year-long campaign and praised his public service and his conduct on the stump.
"I want to congratulate Sen. Lieberman for his outstanding conduct during the course of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president," said Gov. John Rowland, a Republican. "Joe is a gracious and humble public servant. He stood up for his beliefs in the quest for the highest office in the land. He is a true representative of the best of Connecticut and we are all proud of him.
"I wish Joe and his family all the best as he continues to serve our state in the U.S. Senate."
"All of Connecticut is proud of Joe," Dodd said. "He waged a valiant fight on the presidential campaign trail and he helped spotlight issues of importance to our state and nation. I am just pleased that we'll continue to have him ably representing the people of our state in the United States Senate."
Rep. Robert Simmons, R-2 nd District, applauded Lieberman on his decision to bow out and praised what he called a "presidential performance."
"Our fellow citizens in Connecticut will be well served with Sen. Lieberman back from the campaign trail working on local issues," Simmons added. "At the same time I admire and congratulate Sen. Lieberman for his unwavering and courageous stand on many issues during the campaign."
Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-5 th District, said: " Connecticut should be proud of Joe and his campaign for president. He's a good man and he ran a principled campaign that distinguished him as a candidate."
Some Connecticut residents expressed regret that Lieberman would not end up in the White House.
"I think that as a person from Connecticut , I am disappointed," said New London resident Valerie Tamano, an employee of the school district. "But certainly, I know that he gave it his all, and if he sees at this time that it is not going to work out for him, then it's a choice that he made. The fact that he did it so early on is a wise choice."
U.S. Senate Proceedings Grind to Halt Due to Toxin Discovery
WASHINGTON - Senate office buildings were closed and much business ground to a halt Tuesday after a white powder discovered in a mailroom was determined to be the deadly toxin ricin.
The substance was found Monday afternoon in the mailroom that services the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building .
Rep. Robert Simmons, R-2 nd District, released a statement announcing that mail service to his Washington congressional office and those of his colleagues was suspended.
"Due to the positive tests of ricin contamination in the U.S. Capitol complex, all mail delivery to congressional offices has been suspended until a mail-screening procedure is put into place," Simmons said. "As a result, any correspondence that was recently mailed to my Washington congressional office may not reach me . I regret any inconvenience that this may cause."
Although three Senate office buildings were closed, the House of Representatives kept to its schedule.
"The last I heard they hadn't determined anything on the House side," said Meghan Curran, a staffer in Simmons' office. "The only thing we felt was the lack of mail. The House is pretty much running as usual."
According to Dr. Charles McKay, associate medical director of the Connecticut Poison Control Center , ricin is derived from the castor bean, which is used in the production of castor oil. Although highly toxic when injected into the system, ricin's effects as an inhalant are unknown, he said. The toxin, however, is not considered as deadly as anthrax, which closed down the Capitol when it was discovered in Senate mail in late 2001.
"Anthrax was an infectious biological organism," said McKay, who works with the State Bioterrorism Task Force. "So you inhale small numbers and they multiply and grow. With ricin you have to get a sufficient amount of the compound into your system to cause the effects. It's a slow poison; it prevents the cells from making their proteins, which results in multiple organ failure."
He also said ricin was unlikely to be used in a bioterrorism attack.
"It's not a very effective large-scale weapon," McKay said. "It would take so much that it would be completely impractical."
Federal authorities said they have no reason to believe this was an act of international terrorism.
The discovery of ricin came hours before a letter laced with white powder was found about 1 a.m. Tuesday at a Wallingford postal facility. Officials had not determined Tuesday what the substance was.
According to the Wallingford Police Department, the bulk reply envelope, addressed to Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington , was isolated two hours later by a hazardous material team working with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Connecticut State Police. The FBI is investigating.
"We are in the process of testing the powder-like substance," said William Gerrish, spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Public Health.
Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., recalled that in late 2001, an 95-year-old Oxford woman died of anthrax poisoning.
"I'm hopeful that the substance found in Wallingford doesn't turn out to be a threat," he said in a statement. "Sadly our state previously had to deal with tragic consequences from anthrax attacks, and it goes without saying that my thoughts and prayers are with the workers there as they deal with these anxious moments."
