Connecticut Lawmakers; 310

Time for Medicaid no make a complaint over nothing. Capitol members of Congress dealing with crime in the nation's capital. Lloyd with dish on the battle for more space a few cities in town and lawmakers move on a pay equity bill and competition in communication. I'm Bob Douglas and welcome to this week's edition of Connecticut lawmakers. One of the big issues statewide and across the nation is how to deal with the crime problem. This week the State House of Representatives adopted the first of many crime related bills a so-called get tough on crime bill sailed through the State House of Representatives this week by a vote of. What do you crave following a long debate over which party was the owner of the public's desire to deal harshly with career criminals. Because there's nothing in this bill at any time that requires a judge to sentence an individual to life in prison after the conviction of three

or more class B felonies I agree that at that point it might be very difficult to have an issue to have an individual commit a fourth or a fifth offense. But it is still theoretically possible. The way this particular bill is written The people want us to end the revolving door of justice. The people fed up sick and tired of having violent criminals come back out onto our streets after serving a minimal amount of time in prison. We as legislators off first duty is to protect the safety of ah constituents. That is our number one constitutional responsibility. It's all this bill is an attempt to address the issue of violent crime in an intelligent manner. It maintains discretion in the judicial system. The prosecutors

and judges maintain discretion. It targets their repeat violent offender. This bill does not target those who steal hubcaps or steal candy from staus. This bill targets the worst of the offender is those who rape who molest to kill who commit Osten. Those people do not deserve to be on our streets. Much of the debate was over a Republican amendment that called for a mandatory life sentence after a third felony. There are many that probably think this is too soft that you have to do this a third time. We ought to at least say to the people of the state of Connecticut for those that talked before about being concerned that the bullets were flying and we needed to do something. These are the guys pulled the triggers. Let's do something let's put them in jail for life support. How safe do we have the courage to stand up and say to them as a matter

of public policy that we are going to be tough on the criminals. I think when you look at the package in total maybe it goes too far for some people not far enough for other people. But it is a very very delicate balance. And as for myself and I know many others I went to the people who are in the trenches the state's attorney's office the people the prosecutors and the system prosecutors that have to deal with these on a day to day basis. And early onset down and talk to them to see what would work because I am less interested in doing anything that just sounds good as opposed to something that's real. And that's the that's the issue before us in this chamber. What is real and what can work out there in the real world. Because you know what the people are frustrated as my colleagues on the other side say and they are aggravated in the skies to do a crime as we all are in this chamber. I think this is a delicate balance that's been worked out and I support all the initiative

wholeheartedly and I think they should pass in total as a speaker this is an opportunity for all of us in this chamber to walk the walk. You can say you're tough on crime. You can say you want to do something about stopping murders in our cities and increasingly in our suburbs and rural areas. I had a murder less than a mile from my home last December. Father on a visitation supervised visitation killed this 6 year old daughter shot social worker was observing her supervisor. And as citizens in this state we walk afraid we walk in fear. I had an incident the other evening driving in the city of Haifa and I must confess as I was at a stoplight and I wasn't quite paying attention to the light changing changing back to green I had a car behind me beat to get movement and as I

looked I saw some some young men in the car and I moved on and I came to another right as well to take a right on red they start beeping again I must say I got very paranoid as very nervous maybe was unfounded but we all live in fear of what's going on. It's in our papers on the news all the time. The amendment failed along party lines but under the bill a person is convicted of a second felony he could be sentenced as long as 40 years with a Republican sponsored amendment that calls for anyone being convicted of a crime with a firearm within fifteen hundred feet of a school would be eligible for parole as well. It is striking how differently many people voted. After I speak I'm sure some of your members will get up if they bother to tell you exactly how very different in substance. The last amendment was C from B. And how why many While many of you should have voted for it be voted rightly for A B C was foolish went too far it was a silly amendment he made sense.

She was outlandish. The fact of the matter is that it's a good thing that gallery doesn't hold three million people and they don't all come because I think they'd be rather disappointed. That at one moment in the day when people seem as best I can tell to be voting more freely more in tune with their consciences in their constituencies. That has to be stopped. That trend has to be aborted it can't be let to go on. And that's a shame. And in this case I think it's a shame because bad legislation came of it or a failure to improve legislation came of it. And I just wish that when this happens again we at least plod along and people vote how they feel and we don't have to have any more caucuses because it seems as if again Democratic caucuses do not serve the state of Connecticut very well. Frankly I would Representative Norton

took a little bit of my thunder. But let me just share with you an article that I was handed a short time ago I thought it was kind of interesting reading material. It says sort of an issue background. Increased public concern over crime particularly in the area of gang violence violence has promoted bipartisan anti crime effort. Yup. I heard the chairman of the Judiciary Committee a short time ago say this isn't a three strikes and you're out. Can I urge you to introduce yourself representative to listen to Marissa. Because this is the the handout that is being distributed to people around this building that indicates this is a bill otherwise known as three strikes and your out initiative it locks up repeat offenders for up to life if they're convicted of three felonies. But you know I found some of

the material really useful. It goes on to say Currently Congress in about 30 states are considering some version of the concept. CORNYN New York Times recent polls show that more than 80 percent of Americans support the three strikes and your out proposal. Connecticut's statistics are just as staggering. According to the Department of Corrections of the thirteen thousand six hundred seventy seven incarcerated in Connecticut as of February 1 about 58 percent are serving their second term for a felony while 34 percent are serving their third or subsequent. Mr. Speaker the only point I want to make is that there does come a time when we should not take part on issues that have no partisan angle. And I would suggest that perhaps we ought to adjourn for the day as soon as this vote is taken and will come back tomorrow and perhaps do business the way the public would like us to do business.

Mr. Speaker I urge the chamber to adopt this bill unanimously at this point. I don't see any reason for not adopting it unanimously. I think the bill would have been better with the last amendment and I think it would have probably more properly represented most people's points of view in response to what Representative who we just said. You know when I walked into this room this morning I knew there were people who thought this bill should be stiffer. But I also thought I had a bipartisan effort and I didn't raise partisanship in here. I worked hard with members of both sides of this file on this whole package to provide the fish and crime fighting tools for the people of the state. I never said this was three strikes you're out. Mr. Radcliffe acknowledged plenty of people have referred to it as the citations given to us by Mr quicky are true some version of Three

strikes you're out has come to mean everything and anything but bipartisanship is what's here for the people of the state of Connecticut and the implications of Representative Norton and Representative quicky are incorrect. Remember Representative Norton talked about amendment B and C.. I'll cite once again and innocuous No no meaning Amendment. So let's not build into here something for November. Let's not build in here something for campaign rhetoric. Let's not build it here is something for flyers. Let's build into this working together on both sides of this aisle not trying to outflank each other but to get down to the nitty gritty of the job for the people of the state of Connecticut. This bill does this. I welcome the support of the other side of the aisle the bill as it is today. Let's pass it. We have other ones to do which I welcome all of all input to make the legislation better and effective.

I think anybody on the other side of the aisle can acknowledge that. But I'm not here for showmanship it's because I'm here to get the job done. I'm not here for showmanship either. But I do believe that there was a difference between Amendment C and the final version of the bill. There was a much truer what the public thinks three strikes and you're out means offered. I think we should adopt this bill. I think it may do something but I think we missed an opportunity to really do something that says third serious felony no discretion to the judge. This bill doesn't do that. I think it falls short there may have been a bipartisan effort the effort was not successful to reach the goal that many of us wanted not for showmanship but because we think it's the right public policy. I think the public will judge this bill as too weak. What we're doing here today ladies and gentleman is we're taking a look at our failures the failures for the last

30 years. The failure is that what we thought was a great society we're moving ahead in and we're being kind to people and we were not requiring them to meet their obligations and we were making and we are making excuses why they do all these things. That's what we're facing today. And I guess we're going to feel better because we're going to say we're going to get tough on of a sudden and do it and I know and you all know that it's not going to happen this way. 385 as amended by house a. The total number of voting 151 necessary for passage 76 those voting 148 those voting nay three absent voting zero bills passes a bill Senate where it is expected to be approved. Now from the nation's capital members of Congress wrestle with their own version

of a crime bill. It was a hip and high paced exchange between President Clinton and 200 young people from around the country on the nation's crime problem. I want to talk today about what we can do about it together. In Washington we're debating a crime bill that I care a lot about which will put more police officers on the street working with young people in their community which will give a whole range of prevention programs that work a chance to work in every community. Everything from after school programs to midnight basketball to jobs for young people for teenagers from the third district's new anti-crime youth council were invited to Washington to join in. The two were front and center for the hour and a half long MTV special none got a chance to ask a question on the air but all were impressed. It was very it was actually an opportunity to see the president really close in his view. For the most part he's really good at thinking on his feet. The rapid fire round is when a

bunch of people ask questions real quick and the president was very good. At that point he had some very humorous responses to some humorous questions. He's a good speaker. There's no place else in the world where this would happen where you have just people walking the streets better armed than the police is not right we got to do something about it and exchange over gun control prompted Bridget Bennett to ask the president afterwards if getting rid of guns is really the answer. Still have these people even though they don't have guns anymore they'll still find something else so why what's the driving force between behind people going out and shooting people and doing drugs and all that other violent stuff stuff and what did the president think he said that it was a really interesting question and that he'll try to get more research done on that and it was a good one and he seemed really out. The teens were anxious to share their experiences with other anti-crime youth council members some 130 kids from 23 3rd District secondary schools who get together once a week to

discuss how to make a better society. The program was the brainchild of Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Well we started the anti-crime Youth Council because any comprehensive strategy one is going to have with regard to looking at the rising crime rate has got to involve our kids. And so I founded the council it's in order to have our kids to have a voice in the debate about the about the crime issue. They have now met with a local media in the district they've met with the law enforcement community and met with a school of personnel with things that they want to do these are people that they want to have an opportunity to have some interaction with. Several came down to meet with the vice president and the attorney general a couple of months ago. They've gone up to a summit going up to the Hartford to see the governor of Connecticut Lowell Weicker about the youth initiatives and their interest in those initiatives and how they see some of the legislation going.

And just most recently with the MTV event that the president had with young people we were happy to have four of our kids come down and have an opportunity to be there and meet the president. Why is it important the kids get involved in fighting crime. Well they are in the schools every day. They're talking to each other more often they can have an impact on their peers than teachers can that are other adults. I think it is really important to get involved because this is the world we live in and we're the next generation and if we can't even walk on the streets without worrying about if someone's going to come behind you and rob you or shoot you then it doesn't make any sense to live. I mean that's what the president was stressing you know what is the point of freedom if I can walk outside and just even going along for a stroll or something. What's the sense of being free if you can't get to use your freedom. The teenagers all agree to making the trip to a crime forum was worth it. I think it helped a lot of people you know we have to you know it starts with the community. You know yes to start with themselves they can't rely on the government to make the changes you know the

government is though going to help get more teenagers involved in fighting crime. Congress has included five million dollars in the crime bill for Justice Department grants to schools across the country so they can start their own anti-crime youth councils in Washington Kathleen Koch for Connecticut lawmakers next. Lloyd Webber's has this report on the never ending debate over appropriate state aid to cities and towns. Hartford is just one of the major cities in Connecticut. The officials have been seeking additional state aid for education. For the sake of the civil services and for those who reduce the property tax burden on local residents and here at City Hall Mayor Michael Peters says there's another reason to be concerned. The city is now coping with a budget gap of nearly 40 million dollars. It's very important because just budget alone that the city made to us and made it we're going to be losing a number of jobs real jobs in the city

of Hartford. We're cutting back on a lot of the social programs that we so dearly needed. So we need to support all those what we can get all the resources we can get from the state of Connecticut. Mary Peters says he's been trying hard to bring more resources into Hartford but it's been difficult because of the cap on state spending. The 440 billion dollar budget recommended this week by the acting city manager in Hartford Sander keyboard is just not calling for a tax increase but it does call for cuts in human services and recreation programs and the elimination of 44 jobs to deal with a budget gap of thirty four million dollars. Well some of the services will be impacted but we're looking at that the real service as a public public works fire and police. No major impact but. And she know she's cut back to 1 percent. She's a little bit literally 4 million dollars less than what we had last year in our budget. So we have yet to pore over it we just received it. And our job over the next month is as a city council in America is to see where the cuts are taking place

and how do we save some of the some of the positions that he's cutting. And that again is directly tied to what the state is going to do to go to the proposed Hartford budget just to eliminate the need to raise taxes and to preserve city resources to provide for public safety. There is funding for a new fire class of 20 and the recruitment and training of a new 40 member police class. But because of the gang problem in Hartford the mayor is seeking more state funding for police or that's needed because two things are happening with the gang violence and the and the and the perception of crime in the city of property. It's also not hurting our kids but it's also very much affect their economic development. So we need all the resources we can we can get for a police department that's also for youth intervention programs. Mayor Peters has been lobbying hard at the state capitol this year for additional money for Harvard. Some lawmakers are sympathetic but others say the legislature has done a lot in recent years for the big cities. Presently under statutory grants is to all cities and towns of the state

of Connecticut there's some one point five five billion dollars. The top five distressed municipalities in the state. Get roughly six hundred ten million of that which is better than a third. Where is I'm not going to be enough. And what are we going to have to do to standardize what's happening within our cities so we know that the money is going to properly versus just going into budgets you know not affecting one legislator told me you know Mayor your city is always up you're begging for money. Well the fact the matter is Avon doesn't have the big sins but it is not the big conference put in a position along with Bridgeport don't even want to bury that they have to go up there for resources because they are 55 percent of our land is pretty much tax free. We harbor all the poor we have 15000 units a public housing we have three hospitals we don't pay full taxes you know and so what I have to say that we need we need your help. We need your help because we provide a lot of the infrastructure for the region. The city of hard for that has a large number of state government buildings does get help from the ponit

program payments in lieu of taxes for property owned by the state and colleges and hospitals. But the mayor says there continues to be a need for real estate property tax relief. Now I can see having happened this year. You know the word is an election year it's very difficult to do. We've been lobbying for I think it has a shot. I think if we can get some some takeover or partial takeover of the GA General Assistance Program and in the state that gets primarily in the city of Harvard that would go a long way to help us solve some of the problems there with our budget. Right now Hartford as one of the worst local budget problems in Connecticut Hartford and suburban residents have mixed views as to whether or not the state should provide more funding to help the city deal with its financial troubles. I think most cities today are in a bar. I think it's difficult to get money. The middle class is being squeezed. The money just isn't there anymore. I don't know what the answer to the problem is but the situation just seems to be getting worse and worse. Should the state help out

more. Well the state should help out as much as they can. Tight think the state would be darn a great service if it helped the cities after all and the city is a part of the state and it's the welfare of all the people in my opinion. So if the city could get some money to help the city because the city is in dire need of money there's so many many things that could be done such as well just to start off with potholes which would cost probably millions of dollars just for that one particular thing as so many other services that are lacking because of money shortages I think that the city of Hartford needs to to re-evaluate. Where they're spending the money it seems to be tax have been increased so much that you know we can't continuously crease taxes to make up for the revenues. We can't go to the state to get the money if. We've been tech so much it seems to me there's got to be spending cuts and priorities

set in those programs or positions that are really needed should be eliminated. Oficial some hard food in the Connecticut collar Simonis a powder they say even at the legislature back some kind of property tax relief plan. There still won't be enough money to help cities pay for some important services at the state capitol. Lloyd Wimbish for Connecticut lawmakers finally state lawmakers this week took action on a so-called pay equity bill for certain state workers and passage of a major telecommunications bill. The State House this week by a voice vote approved a resolution to increase the salaries of more than 25000 state workers to make up or pay in equities based on race and sex bias. The pay equity provision will cost 23 million dollars starting in 1997 this year. We could all go home and say that we have addressed a very serious issue that relates to how the state of Connecticut pays

its people. We pay them not on sex. We pay them not on color creed etc.. We pay them based upon a job description that has been compared to other job descriptions and put it in a proper perspective. In the overall pay scale Mr Speaker I'm sure this is going to pass today and I think it's a great step and for the most part will conclude the major activity in this area. Thank you. Revenue to the major telecommunications bill was unanimously approved by the House that will introduce competition within the state for various services. The measure has been worked on for more than a year and proponents say it will put the state in the forefront of innovation and lower prices for consumers. Practically speaking it it changes the telecommunications industry from a single provider critically the local level terms of S.A.T.

to eventually will see multiple providers local service. We're seeing multiple writers already at the in-state long distance level and that will enhance their ability. This bill hits their ability to provide additional services and hopefully see and we'll see. Effectively lower prices as competition is the means to make it more efficient and cost effective as opposed to a regulated environment which not always brings about the greatest efficiencies was the bill a long time in the making. It has been a long time in the making of a year and we labored long and hard over the summer months through the fall to bring about a consensus process first time that's ever happened. As I understand it and the country and there was broad support for the bill from the industry legislature consumer advocates across the board support side yourself in terms of trying to put this together.

What do you see as the principal players. Well the industry very strong players in this in essence 80 came to the table willing to compromise on a lot of things. And some might say why would they do that that they are inviting competition or accepting competition but they recognize the changing world of telecommunications the. Credible pace that that that industry is changing at and they have to come to the table and said what we want to compete. We feel we can survive in that environment. We've never dealt with it in that environment before but we feel we can compete and survive and offer a good product to the customers of Connecticut. Now one of the possible companies do you see coming into Connecticut now to do business here. Well some of the existing companies that MCI has announced a plan not in Connecticut yet but to look at local service in other communities across the country and we hope they will look at Connecticut other local companies the next year will be looking at Connecticut from a local service perspective at the business end and we hope within two to three years at the residential end as well.

So not only additional customers but additional services that could be provided to people and and eventually I think we'll see that the consolidation of the cable industry and the telephone industry as well which is happening in other parts of the country at least that's being looked at seriously. And that's this week's edition of Connecticut lawmakers. I'm Bob Douglas. We do thank you for joining. Us.