Category: Fall 2003 Newswire
Sununu to Support Internet Tax Ban; Could Cost NH Millions
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Sununu announced his support Wednesday for an Internet tax ban that could cost New Hampshire millions of dollars. Two of the state’s three other representatives in Congress, Sen. Judd Gregg and Rep. Jeb Bradley, both Republicans, also support the ban.
“The Internet is a technological tool used by millions of Americans to transact business,” Sununu said in a statement. “Access to it deserves to remain free from tax burdens that will hinder our country’s potential for economic growth.”
Since 1998, the Granite State has been exempt from a temporary ban that barred other states from taxing Internet connections and from taxing Internet purchases differently from the way they tax other purchases. It also prevented more than one state from taxing the same sale.
New Hampshire was allowed to continue to collect taxes on Internet access despite the ban because its 7 percent tax on all two-way communication within the state, including telephone calls, began in 1990, well before the 1998 moratorium. But Sununu said states that jumped to tax the Internet before Congress acted “will have to resolve their issue.”
But the ban expired Saturday. And a bill sponsored by Sen. George Allen, R-Va., to extend it indefinitely would eliminate exemptions for New Hampshire and nine other states in 2006.
The bill’s supporters argue that taxing Internet connections hurts free expression. They also contend it would unfairly affect low-income people less able to pay the tax.
States are the primary opponents of the ban. Officials from the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration could not be reached for comment late Wednesday. Some estimates show the ban could cost the state $5 million to $15 million a year.
New Hampshire Republican Congressman Charles Bass fought a similar House bill to ban Internet taxation in September, though he has said he opposes taxing the Internet. Bass has said that the ban would interfere with states’ rights to levy taxes and that it would be unfair for the federal government to impose a law that would cost states so much. The bill passed the House by a voice vote.
“What this bill does is eliminate the ability of the state of New Hampshire and áother states to collect revenue on what is justifiably a state-centered tax,” Bass said on the House floor.
The House version of the bill would eliminate New Hampshire’s exemption immediately. A spokesman said Bradley did not oppose the bill based on assurances he’d received that the exemption would be extended for three years in the Senate version.
If the Senate passes its version of the ban, which Gregg is c-sponsoring, House and Senate negotiators would hammer out a final version of the bill.
The core argument, Sununu said at a press conference, is whether access to the Internet is fair game for taxation.
“If you’re standing up to protect the right of these states to continue to levy these taxes, then you are effectively saying, ‘I believe the Internet should be taxed,’ ” Sununu said.
Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a non-partisan think tank based in Concord, said taxing the Internet goes against the core reason that taxes exist: to pay for services.
“There is not a building that exists [on the Internet] that needs fire protection, there are no parking issues or traffic issues,” Arlinghaus said. “The only excuse for taxing the Internet is because you think government needs more money, and I think, by and large, the American public has been encouraging policies that do not take more money from their pockets.”
DOJ Patriot Act Website Raises Eyebrows
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - A Justice Department Web site designed to mobilize support for the Patriot Act touts favorable quotes from leading Democrats, including Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, presidential contenders who are now critics of the law.
The Web site, www.lifeandliberty.gov, features comments made by Democrats and Republicans during and immediately after Congress debated and passed the Patriot Act in October 2001. It was barely more than one month after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Washington was desperate to find ways to root out terrorism.
Two years later, the terrain has changed. Some Democrats and Republicans who initially supported the act, which gave more powers to law enforcement agencies, now say it curtails too many civil liberties and needs to be amended. And now some Democratic presidential candidates, who are campaigning against the Patriot Act, find that their earlier statements are being used as part of a Bush administration campaign to defend the law.
The Kerry campaign, in particular, is unhappy about it.
"It is just another example of the misleading that this administration does in putting politics over policy," said campaign spokeswoman Kelly Benander. Benander did not deny the accuracy of Kerry's quotation.
Kerry has emerged as a vocal critic of the Patriot Act during the presidential primary campaign. But the Justice Department Web site quotes him as saying on the Senate floor on Oct. 25, 2001, "With the passage of this legislation, terrorist organizations will not be able . . . to do the kinds of things they did on Sept. 11."
Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, has also sharply criticized it and has called for the repeal of some of its provisions. Efforts to reach the Edwards campaign for comment were unsuccessful.
Blain Rethmeier, a Justice Department spokesman, said the prominent placement of Democrats on the Web site's "Congress Speaks" page was "coincidental. There is no intent behind it."
In an August press release promoting the new Web site, Barbara Comstock, then the director of public affairs for the Justice Department, said the site would attempt to "dispel some of the major myths perpetuated as part of the disinformation campaign" against the Patriot Act.
She added that ""while news reports sometimes describe the law as 'controversial,' I have included below just some of the statements previously made by members of Congress about the Patriot Act." Among them are statements by Kerry and Edwards.
The Patriot Act provides federal law enforcement officials with new tools to track and obstruct terrorists. But in the roughly two years since its unanimous enactment,, the act has been the subject of withering criticism from opponents for violating individual liberties. The most vocal critics have been Democrats running for President.
As the outcry over the act intensified, Attorney General John Ashcroft traveled across the country this summer giving speeches that defended the law as effective and fair.
The Web site's home page displays a summary of the bill with links to other pages on such subjects as "Dispelling the Myths," "Support of the People," "Responding to Congress" and the "Congress Speaks" page that includes the floor statements and press releases that are two years old.
Jameel Jaffers, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Web site was "meant to sell legislation and is clearly a political site."
The law is set to expire in 2005, and President Bush spoke at CIA Headquarters in September in support of expanding the Justice Department's authority. It is unclear whether Congress would be asked to reauthorize the act or enact a new law in its place.
Bradley Visits IRAQ, Talks With NH Troops
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) returned to the capital Tuesday night from a six-day trip to Iraq, where he met with New Hampshire troops and Iraqi police officers and discussed their work to rebuild the country and heal the wounds of the country's violent past.
Bradley said soldiers from New Hampshire urged him to ask Americans to continue to support the troops as they work to rebuild Iraq.
The New Hampshire troops "feel that they're making a difference, that they're making progress," Bradley said in a telephone press conference Wednesday from his Capitol Hill office. "That isn't to say that there aren't challenges and obstacles, but these kids are capable of meeting challenges and obstacles.
"But they want to know that they have the fortitude and the backbone at home to support their efforts because they'll get the job done if we continue to support their efforts."
Bradley backed the Bush administration's plans to increase the use of Iraqi police and military forces.
"I think that it's not necessary to send more American troops today," he said. "What is necessary is to get more of the civilian defense force of Iraqis, the Iraqi policemen, border guards and a newly constituted army so that these people, the Iraqis, whose country it is, are actually doing the security and protection work in their country.á
"The Iraqi people are going to be much more comfortable with their own police force doing the intelligence and having us as support," rather than the other way around, he said.
Bradley said the American soldiers and Iraqi police told him that most Iraqis supported the American invasion.
"They felt that the vast majority of Iraqis that they were dealing with are happy that we're there," Bradley said. "There are some that are neutral and then, clearly, there are some that oppose our presence. And for the most part, these are either foreign infiltrators -- the type of people that crash jetliners into tall buildings -- and the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime."
There has been no proof that Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America, though both the Bush administration and its critics say terrorists now are gathering in Iraq.
Bradley acknowledged that those loyal to former Iraqi President Hussein continued to launch as many as 35 attacks a day on coalition forces.
Bradley said that both American soldiers and Iraqi police forces worked under dangerous conditions - he was in a C-130 plane heading from Kuwait to Tikrit, Iraq, when an American helicopter was downed Sunday, leaving 15 dead -- but that the Iraqis in particular were focused on the greater goal of rebuilding.
"They're thankful for the fact that America has liberated their country, giving them the opportunity to rebuild it," Bradley said. "And they are willing to fight and die for the opportunity to rebuild their country, and that was pretty heartwarming for me to hear the Iraqi people say that."
Bradley, however, spent each night of his trip in Kuwait, flying back and forth between the neighboring countries every day for security reasons, said his spokesman, T.J. Crawford.
In Kuwait, Bradley met with representatives of the Kuwait Chamber of Commerce and visited Camp Wolf, where American troops stop before returning to the United States for 15-day breaks.
"It is clearly a morale booster, and I was glad to see that our troops are getting this opportunity," Bradley wrote in e-mail update to reporters during his trip.
It was during his flights back to Kuwait that Bradley saw lights on in Iraqi homes. During a briefing with L. Paul Bremer, the American overseeing Iraqi reconstruction, Bradley learned that electricity had been restored to pre-war levels.
Bradley said he got a first-hand look at evidence of torture under Hussein's regime when he toured the Abu Gharib prison, where approximately 80,000 Iraqis were tortured and killed. Bradley said he saw the torture chambers and victims' "disturbing" final messages on the walls of the execution room.
He also viewed a dramatic re-enactment of an execution. "Even as I describe it now, it is sickening. It's disgusting and á I was left speechless," he said.
Senate Passes National Credit Reporting Bill
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted 95-2 on Wednesday in favor of a national credit reporting bill that legislators say would protect consumers from the growing crime of identity theft.
But consumer advocacy groups said that lawmakers had missed an opportunity to pass tougher legislation that would prevent banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions from sharing consumers' personal information.
The controversial bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), includes provisions to fight identity theft but does nothing to stop affiliate-sharing of consumer information. The bill, along with the House-passed version, now goes to conference.
Ed Mierzwinski, a consumer advocate with the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, said he was "extremely disappointed" that the Senate had chosen "to permanently take away state rights to protect consumer privacy."
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the only two senators to vote against the bill, sponsored an amendment that would have allowed consumers to request that financial institutions not share their personal information with affiliates.
The Senate rejected their amendment, which was patterned after a new California law, by a vote of 70-24.
"I think time will show that this was the wrong vote, and I have no doubt that this issue will resurface as consumers learn more about the misuse of their most sensitive personal information," Sen. Feinstein said.
Sen. Shelby said his bill "strikes a careful balance between ensuring the efficient operation of our markets and protecting the rights of consumers."
He said it would cut down on identity theft by requiring merchants to eliminate credit card and bank account numbers on electronic receipts, increasing the maximum penalty for identity theft from three to five years in prison and allowing consumers to place fraud alerts on their credit reports if they suspect they have been victims of identity theft.
The Bush administration announced its support for Shelby's bill, saying it would strengthen "the national credit reporting system that has proven critical to the resilience of consumer spending and the overall economy" and protect consumers by "including new tools to improve the accuracy of credit information and help fight identity theft."
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said Bush's support of the legislation violated his "strong and explicit campaign promises to allow consumers to have 'absolute' control over their private information."
The organization sent a letter to the President on Wednesday, which said: "While campaigning in 2000 you promised voters in the strongest and most explicit possible terms that you would protect our privacy if elected President. Those commitments do not square with your Administration's support of legislation to give banks free rein to share information with thousands of corporate affiliates."
Consumer groups say they will watch closely as the legislation moves into conference committee, but they are not optimistic that the final bill will do enough to protect consumers.
"Without a clear statement from Congress and President Bush that companies have to get permission before sharing information, the bill will fail to protect consumer privacy," said Jerry Flanagan, spokesman for the FTCR. "If they are not addressing the heart of financial privacy legislation, Americans won't have the privacy that they deserve."
Some NH Towns and Cities a No-Show on Fed Crimes
WASHINGTON - New Hampshire's violent crime rate dropped last year, but remains significantly higher than it was in the late 1990s, according to crime statistics released last week by the FBI.
The violent crime rate declined 5.3 percent in 2002, which translated to 88 fewer murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults than in 2001.
But New Hampshire law enforcement agencies reported 897 more violent crimes last year than in 1999, the statistics show. Taking the state's growing population into account, that still meant a 67 percent increase in violent crime rate in just three years.
However, with several of New Hampshire's biggest cities - including Concord, Nashua and Salem--and many smaller towns not reporting, those statistics represent only 76 percent of the state's population, the data show. The result is a picture of crime in the Granite State that some experts say might not be entirely accurate.
"You've got a small percentage change and a lot of missing data," said Jim Lynch, chairman of the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University here. A quarter of the population "is a lot not to cover," he said.
Lynch, who has worked with the data for years, said not counting several large cities, which tend to have higher crime rates, can make statewide rates appear lower than they actually are.
It's a trend he said has been showing up on a national scale, too. The national reporting rate has dropped from about 95 percent of the total population in the mid-90s to 85 percent now, he said.
The FBI issues what is known as Crime in the United States every fall based on crime statistics voluntarily reported by over 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the country. Usually, New Hampshire and other states send data to the FBI once a month.
Experts often have criticized the reports because they're voluntary, because they reflect only reported crime and because they summarize complex crime data into nine simple categories. And with states strapped for cash in recent years, reporting operations have often received short shrift, leading to spottier data, Lynch said.
Even the FBI declines to compare crime rates among states.
"They don't have much control over the system," said Lynch, noting that Florida has been known to drop out every few years. "It's far-flung and it's voluntary."
New Hampshire's violent crime rate dropped from 170 per 100,000 people in 2001 to 161 in 2002. In raw numbers, New Hampshire reported 2,144 violent crimes in 2001 and 2,056 the following year, compared to 1,159 in 1999, when the rate per 100,000 people was 96.5.
New Hampshire's murder rate, however, was 40 percent lower last year than it was in 1999 - from 1.5 per 100,000 to 0.9. Though the murder rate was also down, by 33 percent, in 2002, that drop was caused by an increase in population. There actually were the same number of murders -- seven-- in the past two years and 18 in 1999. Robbery and rape rates were also down slightly last year, but up from 1999.
During that three-year period, the state's population grew by about 74,000 to 1,275,056, a 6 percent increase.
Unlike some places, where Lynch said reporting has gotten worse, New Hampshire's reporting rate actually improved last year. In 2001, the FBI received reports from cities and towns that encompassed just 65.8 percent of the state's population.
Nashua did not report last year because it was in the midst of transferring to a more detailed reporting system, said Karen Lamb of the New Hampshire State Police, who is in charge of coordinating New Hampshire's data for the FBI. She said Salem has not reported since 1994. Salem and Concord officials could not be reached for comment.
And although the FBI does not rank states based on their reporting rate, a number of them did better than New Hampshire. In 2002, California reported at a rate of 100 percent, Utah and Maine at 99 percent.
"New Hampshire has one of the lowest reporting rates in the country," said Mark Thompson, director of administration in the New Hampshire Department of Justice. "However, that is only half the story, because the good news is that we're increasing tremendously."
Thompson attributed the lag in reporting to a shift by many New Hampshire agencies to a more detailed and potentially more accurate reporting system.
"There are holes in the reporting fabric, and you've got to be very careful about what conclusions you draw from these data if you're not certain if they're really representative of the entire state," said Ted Kirkpatrick, director of Justiceworks, a research group at the University of New Hampshire.
Kirkpatrick said data can accurately portray broad trends in crime but cannot be used to compare states to one another.
"The one thing that you can be pretty certain about is that crime relative to other parts of the country is extremely low in New England, particularly in the three northern New England states," he said. But, "You get into this: 'Well we show that we're actually lower than Maine,' " he said. "And I don't think the quality of data allows us to show that with certainty."
Will Medicare Issues be Resolved?
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - They are almost all Republicans, meeting behind closed doors in an effort to resolve their differences. But time is running out for Congress to complete its work on what would be the most significant overhaul to Medicare in 40 years.
"I've always thought failure was not an option," said Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy. "But we are in the last moments of the final inning."
Republican congressional leaders have said they wish to recess this month, but first they'd like to pass a Medicare bill that is a domestic priority for them and for President Bush. But one moderate Republican whose support is considered crucial to ultimate passage is not so sure the issue will be resolved.
"I am pessimistic that a bill will get finished," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island.
Last summer, both the House and Senate approved a $400 billion, 10-year package that would revamp the health care system for seniors and, for the first time, provide them a prescription drug benefit. Yet the bill has been hamstrung by differences between House and Senate versions, particularly a House provision that would allow direct competition between private-sector plans and Medicare.
Democrats say such competition would eventually leave seniors without care. Republicans, prodded by conservatives in the House, have insisted that private plans be allowed to compete.
In June, the House passed its Medicare bill 216-215 amid last-minute arm-twisting by House GOP leaders. With only a one-vote margin, the House leadership is keenly aware of the value of every Republican vote. Therefore, various coalitions that emerge on the legislation can hold disproportionate sway over negotiations. For example, 42 House conservatives have threatened to oppose any bill that does not contain the provision for private competition.
In the Senate, Republicans must placate the concerns of moderate Senate Democrats and the liberal Kennedy, who long has been a leader on Medicare and who is the senior Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Kennedy supported the Senate version of Medicare, bringing with him Democrats who might otherwise have voted against the measure. As a result, his continued support is vital to the life of the bill.
"They need to keep the Senate Democrats happy and the House Republicans happy," said Congressman Martin Meehan, D-Lowell.
The two Republicans attempting to bridge the gaps are House Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas of California and Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa. They have engaged in several public disputes over the last few months, which has done little to inspire confidence that compromise can be reached.
"The disagreements between Thomas and Grassley are issues affecting who they represent and not between them personally," Chafee said.
Grassley reportedly wants to ensure that $25 billion goes to Medicare payments for rural states. Thomas is said to oppose that provision.
Democrats, meanwhile, have protested the fact that only two of their members--Senators John Breaux of Louisiana and Max Baucus of Montana--have been allowed to participate in the negotiations,. Last week, Congressman Charles Rangel, D-New York, attempted to join the Medicare discussions but was not permitted, Meehan said.
"There is a long way to go," he said. "To get the biggest issues resolved, you need to get Democrats a seat at the table."
It is likely to take congressional aides six to eight days to draft legislative language once an agreement has been reached. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office must review the bill to ensure it does not exceed its limit of $400 billion.
Many Congress members and advocates for senior citizens worry that if a Medicare bill is not completed this year, it will fall victim to presidential politics in 2004. But Congressman John Tierney, D-Salem, said he does not necessarily think that will be the case.
"It will be harder to get a bill next year in an election year," Tierney said. But, he said, "I don't know why that has to be a matter of course."
Tierney said that it was "politically imperative" for the President to get a Medicare bill but questioned whether the bill would contain enough for Senate Democrats to support it.
The Bush administration reportedly has agreed with House Republicans to seek possible cutbacks in Medicare benefits, including the prescription drug plan, if the program's costs exceed $400 billion.
House and Senate negotiators are scheduled to continue their daily negotiations until at least Veterans Day, Nov. 11.
Kennedy to Receive Public Service Award From Former President Bush
By David Tamasi
WASHINGTON - Most fall Friday evenings at Texas A&M University are consumed with speculation on the next day's football game. But this Friday, all eyes in College Station will be on two different quarterbacks, as former President George Bush presents Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy with "The 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service."
Any event featuring the patriarchs of the country's two most prominent political families would merit attention. But against the backdrop of Kennedy's recent comments about former President's son -- President George W. Bush -- and his handling of the war in Iraq, the ceremony could be uncomfortable.
A spokesman for the former President brushed off any suggestions that the affair at the Bush Presidential Museum, which honors the older Bush, would be tense.
"Former President Bush is going to talk about the debate [in Washington]," said Bush spokesman James McGrath. "He will put it in perspective."
McGrath hinted the former President would suggest that political disagreements need not be personal.
The Bush Library Foundation Committee nominated Kennedy for the award last fall, and the former President "was enthusiastic about it the second he heard it," McGrath said.
Kennedy's record of public service stretches back more than four decades. He had a brief stint as assistant district attorney in Suffolk County before winning his first Senate race in 1962 to fill the seat once held by his brother, then-President John F. Kennedy. For a very brief time, he served alongside Sen. Prescott Bush, the current President's grandfather.
Kennedy, 72, is second in seniority in the upper chamber, and has often been the leading advocate in Congress on behalf of the poor, the elderly and the young. He has been his family's patriarch since the age of 36, when his brother Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated during a 1968 presidential run.
It is his long record of service to his country that landed Kennedy the award nomination about a year ago -- just around the time he was voting against granting the current President authority to wage war on Iraq.
Since then, Kennedy has emerged as one of the harshest and most vocal critics of the President's foreign policy in Iraq. Enraging Republicans last month, Kennedy told the Associated Press that the war was "a fraud" that was "made up in Texas." He followed that diatribe with another hostile critique of the President on the Senate floor during debate on the administration's $87 billion request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Before the war, week after week after week we were told lie after lie after lie," Kennedy said.
McGrath said that while some Republicans disagreed with the former President's decision to grant an award to Kennedy, the "award is not for excellence in conservatism, but public service."
Some conservative activists complained to the Bush Presidential Museum that the award should not go to Kennedy in light of his recent criticism of the younger Bush, McGrath said. But, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican who serves on two Senate committees with Kennedy, said he was "not aware" of any GOP senators who objected.
The White House had no comment on the issue.
This is not the first time Kennedy has taken on a wartime Republican President. His biographer, former New York Times reporter Adam Clymer, wrote that in June 1971, Kennedy charged that then-President Richard M. Nixon was "delaying serious" peace efforts in Vietnam to "coordinate them with his re-election campaign."
"The only possible excuse for continuing the discredited policy of Vietnamizing the war seems to be the President's intention to play his last great card for a peace at a time closer to 1972, when the chances will be greater that the action will benefit the coming presidential campaign," Kennedy said. At the time, the elder Bush was America's ambassador to the United Nations, charged with carrying out Nixon's policies.
In 1988, Kennedy took on the elder Bush - then the vice president -- more directly as he campaigned against Bush and on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee, then-Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. In a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention, Kennedy sarcastically asked delegates "Where was George?" when the Reagan administration was embroiled in an arms-for-hostages scandal known as Iran-Contra.
Conversely, Kennedy was the only Democrat to appear at the Rose Garden ceremony when the first President Bush signed a civil rights bill in October 1991.
Kennedy often sets aside partisan differences to work with Republicans on legislation important to him. He did so most recently in 2001, when he worked with the current Bush administration on an education reform law called No Child Left Behind.
Kennedy spokesman David Smith said the senator was "very much" looking forward to the awards ceremony Friday night and would be traveling with "several family members" to Texas to receive the award. Notably absent will be the Kennedy family's newest entrant to elected office: incoming California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Census Data Show College Grads Leaving Connecticut
By Kevin Joy
WASHINGTON - They're young, single, well-educated-and leaving Connecticut in droves.
More unmarried 25- to 39-year-old college graduates left the state than moved in between 1995 and 2000, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released this week.
Young adults used to leave the Northeast for such established Sunbelt cities as Phoenix and Atlanta. Now, they're swarming to Naples, Fla., Las Vegas and Charlotte, N.C., the census reported. The continuing "brain drain" has Connecticut employers and economic officials worried about losing intellectual talent to areas with warmer climates, an abundance of jobs and lower costs of living.
Single college graduates in their 20s and 30s are more mobile than every other age or social group, the Census Bureau reported. Their departure from New England is second only to their migration from the Midwest.
"Young people want to move to places that are hip, but also have jobs," said Marc Perry, a Census Bureau demographer. "Places with faster population growth have more job growth."
Of the 3.4 million people living in Connecticut in 2000, 84,247 were classified as young, single college graduates. But Connecticut lost 6,315 more young, single, college graduates than it attracted during the second half of the 1990s, the bureau reported. Put another way, their rate of departure during that period was nearly three and a half times the overall out-migration rate of all other Connecticut residents 5 and older.
"It is certainly a concern, especially when the economy is struggling," said John Tirinzonie, an economist with the Connecticut Department of Labor. "You have more people leaving and more people retiring."
He added that nearly half of the state's high school seniors last year chose to attend out-of-state colleges this fall, making it less likely they would return home when they graduate.
But Connecticut students and recent graduates aren't immune to wanderlust either.
A semester in Washington during his junior year inspired Shaun Ferrari, 25, to pursue work in the nation's capital following his graduation from Connecticut College in 2000. He is currently a financial services analyst with the Federal Reserve.
Ferrari, who grew up in Windsor Locks, said he eventually plans to settle in Connecticut.
"I'd rather raise a family there," he said. "The feeling I get in the Northeast-I just can't describe it. I like to see the dramatic change of all four seasons."
On the other hand, Jonathan Kaplan, 34, headed to Texas in the early 1990s after receiving degrees from the University of Connecticut and Springfield College in Massachusetts. He said he was attracted by the low cost of living and job opportunities in the South. He moved to Boston a few years later, but his company ultimately transferred him to Phoenix, his current home.
"Everything is brand new and spotless," Kaplan, a Stamford native, said of Phoenix, where he works for an investment management firm. "You can get a four-bedroom house for $150,000 here. And it's definitely more relaxed than Connecticut."
Unlike Ferrari, Kaplan doesn't plan to return home.
Sunbelt cities continue to compete for the Northeast's young and educated. Beginning in 1999, the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce has run a series of television ads in Boston, Dallas and Chicago, tempting young viewers with technology jobs. The chamber has run a similar campaign on the pages of Wired and Rolling Stone magazines.
Connecticut labor officials said they're working to combat the exodus. Last year, the state targeted young adults with an advertising promotion-part of the "You Belong in Connecticut" campaign-that described the state as a "hot spot" for technology and science jobs. In January, it will sponsor a college career expo in Hartford. "
Obviously everyone else is in competition for skilled labor, and, of course, we would like them to stay here," said Pat O'Neil, a representative of the Connecticut Office for Workforce Competitiveness. "But Connecticut schools produce a highly skilled, well-educated labor force and, in turn, they could seek opportunities elsewhere."
Still, O'Neil remains optimistic, saying that as the economy continues to recover and college enrollment increases, more recent graduates might decide to stay in Connecticut.
"As the baby boom generation retires, we need to fill those jobs," O'Neil said. "We believe Connecticut can remain competitive-the quality of life here is second to none."
Holocaust Survivors Gather in Washington
WASHINGTON - Hiding in a haystack, Sonia Goodman escaped the piercing bayonet blade by only half an inch. She recalls the moment as if it were yesterday, but this happened during World War II, when German Gestapo (secret state police) officers were searching for Jews.
Emotional and often painful memories like Sonia's were shared Saturday and Sunday by thousands of other Holocaust survivors who had traveled to Washington, D.C., to gather for the 10th anniversary of the Holocaust Memorial Museum.
"Many local people have helped us," said Olga, Sonia's sister. "I wish I could have thanked some of them. They saved my life."
Sonia and her sister grew up in Antwerp, Belgium. After Germany had invaded the small Western European nation in 1940, Belgium became a place where Jewish people were persecuted.
Their father was arrested in the streets of Antwerp and then deported. Many years later, Olga and Sonia found out that he had perished shortly after arriving at the death camp of Auschwitz. Their uncles and cousins underwent a similar fate.
"We felt like hunted animals," recalls Olga. "After my father's deportation, we knew we couldn't stay any longer in Antwerp and decided to go to Brussels, where Belgian resistance fighters helped us to remain undiscovered."Olga and Sonia then moved to a small village near Bastogne, in southern Belgium, where they remained in safety until the war ended.
Today, Sonia, 74, lives with her husband, Robert, in Queens, New York, but they have a summer house on Mount Desert Island in Maine.
"The pinewoods remind me a lot of Belgium," she said, referring to the Ardennes, a region marked by its gentle hills and pinewood trees, where both girls survived throughout the war. Her husband paints in his studio while Sonia writes poetry.
"Going to Maine in the summer has helped me in preserving my sanity," she said.
Joining the two sisters was Rachel Goodman, 79, who traveled from Florida to attend the survivor's weekend. She also lived in Antwerp and met Sonia and Olga earlier at the event. They spent the afternoon sharing their memories and stories of the days when they still lived in Belgium.
The Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., paid tribute to nearly 7,000 Holocaust survivors from various states by organizing the two-day event. Activities included a Survivor Village, where survivors and families were given the chance to reunite and meet with fellow survivors, and plenty of workshops where survivors were shown how to record their testimonies for posterity, among other things.
"This event is the culmination of our 10th anniversary year," said Sara J. Bloomfield, museum director. "We are moving into a new generation, so our challenge is to make history as relevant and meaningful for the generations to come."
Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who delivered the keynote address Sunday afternoon, embodies this center, according to Bloomfield.
Wiesel had said in the past that "a memorial unresponsive to the future is a violation of the past." Bloomfield added that the museum tries to teach the lessons of the past by gathering witnesses of the past, which it did this weekend.
Kennedy Defends Senate Filibuster of Judicial Nominees
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - - During a nearly 40-hour Senate debate that stretched from Wednesday evening to Friday morning, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., defended Democratic efforts to block confirmation votes on a handful of President Bush's federal judicial nominees.
Republican senators scheduled the nonstop session to protest Democratic filibusters that have prevented votes on the nominations of Priscilla R. Owen of Texas, Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. of Mississippi, and Washington lawyer Miguel A. Estrada, who was so frustrated he withdrew his name from consideration.
Following the marathon debate, Democrats again blocked a confirmation vote on Owen, in addition to Carolyn B. Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, both of California. Although they hold a majority with 51 senators, Republicans have been unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to end filibusters and hold up-or-down votes on several nominees.
Taking the floor during the 24th hour of the session, Sen. Kennedy delivered a history lesson on the judicial appointment process. He said the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution so that neither the President nor the Senate would have absolute control to determine who would sit on the federal bench.
"It's clear that the Constitutional Convention, which had repeatedly rejected the proposal to let the President alone elect the judges, did not intend the Senate to be a rubberstamp for the president," he said. "And it is equally clear that, especially when the Senate is controlled by the President's own party, the Founders did not intend the Senate to roll over and play dead whenever the President tells them to."
The Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats say they have blocked votes on only the most conservative nominees.
Sen. Kennedy said the high approval rate should satisfy Republicans.
"The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill is ridiculously out of touch with reality in AmericaáThey've shut down the entire United States Senate over four remaining right-wing, anti-abortion turkeys who we won't put on the courts," he said in a statement issued before another two nominees were added to the list.
With little time left before Congress recesses for the holidays, Democrats said Republican were wasting time debating a few judicial nominations rather than working on issues critical to millions of Americans, such as Medicare reform and the nation's energy policy.
Sen. Kennedy said the time would be better spent discussing educational issues, including college affordability and funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, a 2001 law that calls for tougher accountability in low-performing schools.
"We wish our friends from the other side in the last 20 hours had mentioned assistance, had mentioned affordability, but they have been absolutely silent," he said. "We think that the families in our country want us to be talking about education and doing something about it rather than droning on in the way that they have."
