Category: Brian Dolan
Shays and Rowland Bicker Over Train Seats
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON— Gov. John Rowland and Connecticut House Speaker Moira Lyons have rejected a proposal by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4 th, to increase the state gasoline tax to pay for 20 new rail cars for the Metro-North Railroad’s New Haven Line.
According to Shays, they have suggested that instead of focusing on the rail line, he turn his attention to getting more federal highway money for the state.
Rowland and Lyons decided Monday that the state should issue $25 million in bonds, which, pooled with the $35 million the state already set aside, would be enough to begin purchasing the new rail cars.
Under their plan, the state legislature would authorize the director of the Connecticut Department of Transportation to begin purchasing the rail cars immediately. Otherwise, the state would have to wait 18 months to buy them.
Last winter, the Connecticut Department of Transportation had to remove 35 percent of the New Haven Line’s rail cars from service because they broke down.
“The cold weather did not cause these cars to break down,” Shays said in a statement last week. “The age of the rail cars and lack of adequate maintenance facilities did.”
Shays proposed then that the state issue bonds to purchase 20 new rail cars and begin building a new maintenance facility, with the bonds paid back through a hike in the gasoline tax.
“When Connecticut reduced the gas tax from $0.39 to $0.25 [per gallon] between 1997 and 2000, the state gave up more than $500 million in revenue that would have gone directly to transportation,” Shays said.
Rowland and Lyons, however, told Shays Tuesday that they were seeking other ways to pay back the bonds.
“The governor and speaker reject the need to raise taxes on the people of Connecticut,” said Lyons’ spokesman, Todd Murphy. “There is no need to raise taxes any more in Connecticut because they are already too high—some of the highest in the country. The representatives of the legislature, the governor and all the people of Connecticut who use this metro system everyday are against a raise in the gas tax.”
Murphy said the state legislature is seeking ways to pay back the bonds that would result in a “win-win situation” for Connecticut residents. But Shays said an increase in the gasoline tax is the best solution.
“A gas tax is not something my constituents want to have, but they don’t want their roads, bridges or railroads falling apart either,” Shays said in an interview Tuesday. “This is a conflict of interest but they need rail cars so we need to take action. I’m willing to take action and willing to raise the gas tax.
“The governor was saying I shouldn’t get involved with this issue, but it’s a huge issue that affects my district,” Shays said. “We have a huge issue with transportation in the state of Connecticut, but if the state wants to raise money somehow instead of raising taxes, that’s their problem.”
Shays said the current political scandal involving Rowland has affected his working relationship with the governor. Rowland accepted gifts for his Litchfield cottage from friends, employees and a state contractor and later lied about it. A special state House committee is investigating his conduct to determine if he has committed any impeachable offenses.
“It could be better—I mean these are awkward times,” Shays said. “I asked him to resign, but I think John and I can be professional.”
Murphy said Shays should focus on increasing Connecticut’s share of federal highway money. If the pending $318 billion highway spending bill passes, Connecticut would get the smallest increase in highway funds of any state.
“We are happy with any involvement Shays has in the [rail car] process,” Murphy said. “But it would be really helpful for us if he was working on getting highway funding. We need a bigger slice of that pie.”
Planned Parenthood Steamed Over Bush Budget’s Irresponsible Choice
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON—Buried deep in President Bush’s fiscal 2005 budget proposal are two italicized words that sharp-eyed critics at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America spotted and cried foul.
“Responsible Choices” is the description the White House used to introduce three paragraphs outlining its sexual abstinence education program.
“Responsible Choices” is also the 1999 trademarked title of Planned Parenthood’s sex education and reproductive health care programs, which include family planning services, emergency contraception and abortions.
The official title of the White House’s abstinence program is the “Adolescent Family Life” program, according to Patrick J. Sheeran, the director of the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Planned Parenthood formally requested in a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson earlier this month that the administration “cease and desist” from using its trademarked title.
“Your use of Responsible Choices as the title of your so-called ‘abstinence-only’ initiative is extremely confusing and troubling, considering the fact that your program not only denies choice but also deliberately censors medically accurate information on sexuality, contraception and the importance of condoms in reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections,” Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood, wrote in the letter.
Sheeran said “Responsible Choices” is a label that accurately describes the abstinence education program, though it is not the program’s title, as Feldt suggested. But Sheeran said he didn’t know how the administration settled on the phrase.
“Our program has and does offer responsible choices,” Sheeran said. “Let me put it this way: maybe we don’t offer as vast an array of choices as Planned Parenthood, and I can’t say what choices they offer because I can’t speak for them, but our program deserves a lot of merit.”
The White House’s budget proposal says abstinence education is the way to combat sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
“Each year, there are 15 million new sexually transmitted disease cases in the United States, and one-quarter of them are teenagers,” the proposed budget states. “Abstinence Education grants provide support to communities and states to develop, implement and evaluate programs for 12 to 18 year olds that promote abstinence and encourage youth to make responsible and healthy choices…. To provide parents with the tools they need to talk to their children about responsible choices, the budget doubles the President’s financial commitment to $270 million.”
Feldt’s letter holds that only a wide range of contraceptive options will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and abortions.
The National Institutes of Health, another HHS agency, financed a study of a nationwide abstinence program in which students 12 to18 years old pledged not to have sex until they were married. Such pledges reduced premarital sex and led to earlier marriages, but they did not cut the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, according to the study published earlier this month.
About 15,000 youths participated in the study. Eighty-eight percent of those who pledged to remain virgins until they were married went back on their word. Adolescents who pledged abstinence were much less likely than others to use contraceptives the first time they had sex, and consequently their risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases and becoming pregnant was as high as among non-pledgers, the study found.
Shays Questions Clarke’s Motives
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON—Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th, lashed out Wednesday at Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief who told a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that the Bush administration failed to adequately address the threat to America.
Clarke “was part of the problem before Sept. 11 because he took too narrow a view of the terrorism threat. His approach was reactive and limited to swatting at the visible elements of al Qaeda,” Shays wrote in a letter to the commission, which spent the last two days questioning high-ranking members of the Bush and Clinton administrations.
“The blind spots and vulnerabilities that contributed to the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy were apparent to many throughout the years Mr. Clarke was in a position to do something about them,” Shays wrote. “Yet no truly national strategy to combat terrorism was ever produced during Mr. Clarke’s tenure.”
Clarke created a stir in the capital this week with the publication of his book, “Against All Enemies,” in which he wrote that President Bush did not do enough to protect America before al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and that Bush then tried to pin blame on Iraq.
The White House has launched a counterattack in an effort to discredit Clarke, who left the administration a little more than a year ago. Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan, disclosed Wednesday that Clarke was the anonymous “senior administration official” who defended the administration’s counterterrorism policies during a briefing with reporters in August 2002.
Clarke explained to the commission that he "put the best face" on Bush's policies while on staff.
"I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration," Clarke said.
Clarke, who was an anti-terrorism adviser to four presidents, said Wednesday that in its first eight months in office, the Bush administration treated fighting al Qaeda as “important” but not “urgent.”
Shays, chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, said Clarke was unhelpful during some of the 20 hearings the panel conducted on terrorism before Sept. 11. “Mr. Clarke was of little help in our oversight. When he briefed the subcommittee, his answers were both evasive and derisive,” Shays wrote in his letter.
In a statement, Shays went into more detail. “Clarke told the subcommittee in June 2000that there was ‘no need for an assessment’ of the terrorist threat,” Shays said. “Mr. Clarke is engaging in revisionist history, apparently for personal partisan reasons. The fact is, when he had the authority and responsibility to craft U.S. counterterrorism policies, he consistently failed to articulate a cogent strategy or plan to Congress.”
Shays also said that at a briefing on June 28, 2000, he asked Clarke, then serving as President Clinton's counterterrorism chief, when a threat assessment and strategy would be completed.
“No assessment has been done, and there is no need for an assessment, I know the threat,” Clarke replied, according to Shays.
Shays accused Clarke of taking the low ground nowfor political reasons.
”The task of responding to the terrorist threat is too important to be lowered to partisan bickering,” Shays said. “The bottom line is the failure to respond to the terrorist threat was systemic, not political. It spanned several administrations and pervaded the intelligence community.”
Some critics have accused Clarke of working for the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is his party’s presumptive nominee, while others have suggested he is simply trying to peddle a book. Clarke has denied the allegations, telling the commission he last voted as a Republican.
John Lehman, the former Navy secretary who serves on the 9-11 Commission, gave voice to many of Clarke’s critics when he questioned Clarke’s motivations.
"I hope you resolve that credibility problem, because I’d hate to see you shoved aside in the presidential campaign as an active partisan trying to shove out a book," Lehman said during the hearing.
“I will not accept any position in the Kerry administration should there be one," Clarke responded.
Clarke began his testimony Wednesday afternoon with a rare apology for the deaths that occurred on his watch.
“I welcome this hearing because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the victims of the loved ones of 9-11,” Clarke said. “Your government failed you—those entrusted to care for you failed you—I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we still failed you.”
Blumenthal Tells Secretary of Interior to Stop Tribal Recognition
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON—Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal Wednesday asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to investigate whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) “illegally” granted the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation federal recognition.
The Schaghticoke’s leader promptly accused Blumenthal of being “reckless in his disregard” for the rights of members of the tribe.
Blumenthal asked Norton to put all tribal recognition proceedings on hold until an investigation of the process is completed.
“It was a spirited and frank discussion involving both the Secretary and her staff,” Blumenthal said in an interview following his meeting with Norton. “She was thoughtful and intent in her listening but didn’t indicate either way what her response will be. I’ve called for an investigation by the [Justice Department], which will hopefully begin sometime soon. I also suggested to her she may want to be ahead of that investigation.”
Blumenthal’s discussion with Norton about the Schaghticoke recognition took place during a meeting in Norton’s office with about a dozen state attorneys general from around the country.
The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation first applied for federal recognition in 1994 and the request was rejected by the BIA two years ago. On January 29, the BIA reversed that December 2002 ruling and granted recognition to the tribe.
Last week, a controversial BIA memo which recommended recognition for the tribe, was publicly released.
That January staff memo, written to Aurene Martin, the former acting assistant secretary for Indian affairs, recommended that the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation receive federal recognition despite its failing to fully meet two of the seven recognition criteria: a continuous political relationship with the state and a complete list of tribal members.
The memo said the BIA could recognize the tribe even though "regulations and existing precedent" did not support federal recognition. The memo also says that recognizing the tribe may establish "a lesser standard which would be cited in some future cases."
The memo recommends that although the tribe cannot account for its “political influence”from 1820 to 1840 and from 1892 to 1936, continuous state recognition of a reservation and a well-defined community throughout its history should allow for federal recognition.
The BIA memo was released to all interested parties as part of a court-approved agreement to underscore the transparency of the acknowledgement process, Dan DuBray, a BIA spokesman said in a press release last Friday.
“Critics of the decision have now taken a few partial fragments from what are complete sentences within a multi-paged document to paint a negative picture of the entire decision making process…,” DuBray said. “This is one document of at least 11,000 that were considered in this painstaking and necessarily thorough process.”
Blumenthal told Norton in his letter that the BIA staff admits in the memo to ignoring substantial gaps of evidence in favor of recognition of the tribe.
“The BIA’s own internal memorandum demonstrates beyond any doubt that the tribal acknowledgement process is completely lacking in credibility, fatally flawed and in need of immediate and substantial reform,” Blumenthal said in a letter to Norton.
“I am shocked by the BIA’s lack of concern for the rights of the State of Connecticut, its citizens and the interested parties who participated in these proceedings under the apparently mistaken view that their input would be heard and considered fairly,” Blumenthal wrote.
“It is inconceivable that the Attorney General of Connecticut could be so reckless in his disregard for due process and the well-documented rights of citizens of the state who also happen to be Schaghticoke,” Chief Richard Velky said Wednesday in a statement.
“By calling for a moratorium on all tribal recognitions, the AG is dismissing more than 300 years of history and a 25-year process he once described as fair, open and balanced simply because he doesn’t like the outcome,” said the tribal statement.
“The Attorney General’s inflammatory rhetoric and use of words such as ‘infected’ to describe our petition process is degrading to the tribe and embarrassing to the state. There is a comprehensive and meticulous process in place, and the Attorney General should abide by that process rather than fostering hysteria and divisiveness.”
Shays Says Color Coded Terrorist Threats Ignored
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON—Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th, warned Tuesday that Americans are beginning to ignore the Homeland Security Department color-coded warnings of terrorism threats.
Shays said at a hearing the department needs to upgrade it’s terrorism alert system to provide the suspected time, place and nature of the perceived threats, as required by law.
“Seeing no difference between a perpetually ‘elevated’ state of risk—Code Yellow—and a ‘high’ risk of terrorism at Code Orange, Americans risk becoming colorblind to the signals that are supposed to prompt public awareness and action,” Shays said at a hearing before the National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations Subcommittee, which he chairs.
The Homeland Security alert system uses five colors to indicate the possibility of a terrorist attack. The threat levels are “Severe—Red,” “High—Orange,” “Elevated—Yellow,” “Guarded—Blue” and “Low—Green.”
The government created the system on March 12, 2002, and it never has been lower than “Elevated—Yellow.” The system has been raised to “High—Orange” five times, for a total of 87 days.
But the system puts the entire nation on alert and does not distinguish among regions of the country or economic sectors that are the most likely targets, Shays said.
“When a blizzard or hurricane is forecast, the public is not advised to be brave for America and stay in the eye of the storm,” Shays said. “But when the threat of terrorism is ‘elevated,’ citizens are advised to go about their lives as if no real peril approached. We need to make terrorism alerts at least as targeted and accurate as storm projections.”
Gen. Patrick Hughes, the Homeland Security Department’s assistant secretary for information analysis, said the alert system has evolved over the last two years into an effective warning device.
“Since March 11, 2002, the protective posture of our nation has increased based on our refined ability to respond to specific information with targeted actions and prevention measures,” Hughes said. “As a result, today’s Threat Condition Yellow is yesterday’s Orange….
“Although information is provided publicly regarding protective measures, it is important for the public to understand that DHS implements and recommends additional and more specific protective measures to state and local officials that are only disseminated to security professionals.”
Shays, however, said the warning system needs to evolve further. The Homeland Security Act, which Congress passed in 2002, requires the government to provide “specific warning information and advice about appropriate protective measures” to the public, he said.
“The lack of specificity as to the time, place or nature of the perceived threats provided no basis upon which to calibrate appropriate public or private responses,” Shays said. “As a result, governments and critical industries broadly increased security measures and incurred substantial costs. At the same time, exhortations to carry on as usual in the name of economic normalcy dulled any sense of urgency in the public at large.”
Charles Connor, spokesman for the American Red Cross, praised Americans for not allowing terrorist threats to disrupt their daily lives.
“We are a nation of resilient, optimistic individuals,” Connor said. “We have not let the increased threat of danger deter us from living our lives, and we applaud that spirit.”
Other witnesses at the hearing agreed with Shays that the warning system should provide more specifics.
The government should use a regional alert system to notify emergency workers about threats specific to their jurisdiction or state, said Michael Wermuth, a RAND Corp. expert on responses to terrorism. It also should provide training to first responders about what preventive actions are necessary at different threat levels. Finally, the Homeland Security Department should create a process for providing specific guidance to potentially affected regions when threat levels change, Wermuth said.
Shays said that sometimes the government should give Americans information about specific threats so that they can change their behavior. For instance, Shays previously said he would not venture into Times Square on New Year’s Eve 2003. He added in an interview that he knew what the public did not: the government had picked up word a dirty bomb might be detonated there.
“Whether due to an excess of caution about intelligence sources, or a reluctance to ask for changed public behaviors and sacrifices,” Shays said, “the codes and warnings in use today may be a better barometer of political realities than public safety risks.”
Shays and Rowland Bicker Over Train Seats
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON— Gov. John Rowland and Connecticut House Speaker Moira Lyons have rejected a proposal by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4 th, to increase the state gasoline tax to pay for 20 new rail cars for the Metro-North Railroad’s New Haven Line.
According to Shays, they have suggested that instead of focusing on the rail line, he turn his attention to getting more federal highway money for the state.
Rowland and Lyons decided Monday that the state should issue $25 million in bonds, which, pooled with the $35 million the state already set aside, would be enough to begin purchasing the new rail cars.
Under their plan, the state legislature would authorize the director of the Connecticut Department of Transportation to begin purchasing the rail cars immediately. Otherwise, the state would have to wait 18 months to buy them.
Last winter, the Connecticut Department of Transportation had to remove 35 percent of the New Haven Line’s rail cars from service because they broke down.
“The cold weather did not cause these cars to break down,” Shays said in a statement last week. “The age of the rail cars and lack of adequate maintenance facilities did.”
Shays proposed then that the state issue bonds to purchase 20 new rail cars and begin building a new maintenance facility, with the bonds paid back through a hike in the gasoline tax.
“When Connecticut reduced the gas tax from $0.39 to $0.25 [per gallon] between 1997 and 2000, the state gave up more than $500 million in revenue that would have gone directly to transportation,” Shays said.
Rowland and Lyons, however, told Shays Tuesday that they were seeking other ways to pay back the bonds.
“The governor and speaker reject the need to raise taxes on the people of Connecticut,” said Lyons’ spokesman, Todd Murphy. “There is no need to raise taxes any more in Connecticut because they are already too high—some of the highest in the country. The representatives of the legislature, the governor and all the people of Connecticut who use this metro system everyday are against a raise in the gas tax.”
Murphy said the state legislature is seeking ways to pay back the bonds that would result in a “win-win situation” for Connecticut residents. But Shays said an increase in the gasoline tax is the best solution.
“A gas tax is not something my constituents want to have, but they don’t want their roads, bridges or railroads falling apart either,” Shays said in an interview Tuesday. “This is a conflict of interest but they need rail cars so we need to take action. I’m willing to take action and willing to raise the gas tax.
“The governor was saying I shouldn’t get involved with this issue, but it’s a huge issue that affects my district,” Shays said. “We have a huge issue with transportation in the state of Connecticut, but if the state wants to raise money somehow instead of raising taxes, that’s their problem.”
Shays said the current political scandal involving Rowland has affected his working relationship with the governor. Rowland accepted gifts for his Litchfield cottage from friends, employees and a state contractor and later lied about it. A special state House committee is investigating his conduct to determine if he has committed any impeachable offenses.
“It could be better—I mean these are awkward times,” Shays said. “I asked him to resign, but I think John and I can be professional.”
Murphy said Shays should focus on increasing Connecticut’s share of federal highway money. If the pending $318 billion highway spending bill passes, Connecticut would get the smallest increase in highway funds of any state.
“We are happy with any involvement Shays has in the [rail car] process,” Murphy said. “But it would be really helpful for us if he was working on getting highway funding. We need a bigger slice of that pie.”
Shays Faults FEC for Campaign Finance Loophole
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON—Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th, said Tuesday that the campaign finance law that he spearheaded is positively affecting races this year but that the Federal Elections Commission needs to enforce it better.
“We are pretty happy with the way campaign finance reform is going,” Shays said in an interview. “You don’t see candidates taking unlimited funds and big checks from lobbyists.”
Nonparty organizations called “527s,” however, may be the loophole that Shays and co-sponsor Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., did not foresee when they introduced campaign finance reform legislation that eliminated unlimited “soft” money contributions to political parties. Congress passed the bill in 2002, making this the first election year it is being implemented.
A 527 is a group, organized under the 527 tax code, that advocates political issues and even advertises for or against candidates, said Steven Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent organization that monitors campaign money. Now that big-money donors no longer can finance the Democratic or Republican parties through large and unrestricted soft money contributions, many have shifted their resources to 527s.
Although most 527s existed before the new law did, Weiss said, “there are new groups whose sole issue seems to be to elect or defeat certain candidates….
“These groups are now funding the same activities that political parties used their soft money for in the past,” Weiss said. “Issue advocacy that stops short of saying ‘vote for this candidate,’ but is clearly trying to influence a particular election, is a good example of this.”
Most 527s try to influence federal elections through voter mobilization efforts and so-called issue ads that tout or criticize a candidate's record, Weiss said. The organizations do not report to the Federal Elections Commission but must divulge their contributors and expenditures to the Internal Revenue Service, unless they already file identical information at the state or local level.
“We do have a problem with the 527s,” Shays said. “If 527s raise money that is used in a campaign, then that money should be treated as campaign money. FEC should step in here big time—they are the ones who introduced soft money in the first place.”
The FEC will decide Thursday whether to take up the issue of political organizations and campaign finance, said spokesman George Smaragdis. Commissioners could choose to redefine “political action committee,” which would help determine whether 527s fall under the restrictions of the campaign-finance law.
Campaign-finance reform, which President Bush initially opposed but eventually enacted, actually has worked to the Republicans’ advantage. Republicans traditionally have raised significantly more money than Democrats from small donors who contribute “hard” money – up to $2,000 per candidate per election. Democrats relied more heavily on now-illegal soft money.
As a result, Democratic supporters have turned their attention to 527s. Democratic and liberal 527s raised nearly $36 million during the past year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By contrast, Republican and conservative 527s raised $4.2 million.
Shays also said the federal government does not provide enough money to presidential candidates. The system, established during post-Watergate reforms in 1976, gives candidates $45 million if they adhere to certain spending limits. This year, both Bush and Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic frontrunner, have opted out of the system, a decision that will allow them to spend millions of dollars more.
“I don’t blame President Bush for opting out [of the public campaign finance system],” Shays said. “Or the Democrats, particularly, for not accepting the $45 million,” he said.
“If you have a realistic amount and someone says they have to go over that amount—someone would have to argue getting $75 million for free is not worth it.”
“If someone wants to bypass it then they’d have to work for it.”
Howard Stern’s Suspension is Met with Mixed Reactions
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON—Connecticut Congress members had mixed reactions Thursday to Clear Channel’s suspension of the Howard Stern Show the night before a congressional hearing on indecency in the media.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th, said the congressman has nothing to say in reaction to Clear Channel’s decision or to the recent general debate over indecency in the media.
“Clear Channel drew a line in the sand today with regard to protecting our listeners from indecent content, and Howard Stern’s show blew right through it,” John Hogan, president and CEO of Clear Channel Radio, said in a press release Wednesday. “It was vulgar, offensive and insulting, not just to women and African-Americans but to anyone with a sense of common decency.”
Hogan said in the press release that Clear Channel stations would not air the Howard Stern Show until they could be assured that the show will conform to their standards of decency.
Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., introduced legislation last month that proposes to increase the penalties for television and radio broadcasters that transmit obscene, indecent andprofane language. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act would allow the Federal Communications Commission to issue a maximum fine for each violation of $275,000, up tenfold from $27,500.
"I share senator Brownback's concerns, as well as those of millions of parents,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said in a statement Friday. “I will be taking a close look at his bill and other possible solutions to this problem."
“We were very happy to see today's news that part of [Stern’s] show has been scrubbed,” Upton said Thursday at a hearing on indecency in the media before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “I don't think what he said this week is much different from what he's been saying for years. Why didn't this happen earlier?”
At the hearing, Hogan agreed that Stern’s show was no more indecent Tuesday than in previous shows, but Clear Channel’s regulations for indecency have become less tolerant.
Upton said that Viacom president Mel Karmazin, after testifying at a previous congressional hearing, has heard Congress’s message “loud and clear.” Viacom subsidiary Infinity Broadcasting Operations Inc. owns Stern’s show.
“Karmazin had a conference call with the execs of all 180 Infinity radio stations telling them they'll be fired if they violate the company's new ‘zero tolerance’ policy on obscenity,” Upton said.
The hearing Thursday was the second this month after Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during the Super Bowl halftime show Feb. 1.
“There must be a level of expectation when a parent turns on the TV or radio between the hours of 6 a.m. and10 p.m. that the content will be suitable for children,” said Upton, chairman of the Energy And Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. “You should not have to think twice about the content on the public airwaves—unfortunately, that situation is far from reality.”
Rowland Finds Comfort in Nation’s Capital
By Brian Dolan
WASHINGTON —At home, many are calling for his impeachment. But in the nation’s capital, Gov. John Rowland had, by his own testimony, a “good weekend.”
Roland attended the National Governors Association winter meeting and discussed issues including funding for roads and highways and the Pentagon’s decision to cancel production of the Comanche helicopter. Scandal in Connecticut was hardly mentioned, he said.
After repeated denials, Rowland admitted in December that he accepted gifts and free work from politically connected contractors who renovated his lakeside cottage in Litchfield. He says he did not return the favors.
Many of the governors “treated me very matter-of-factly,” Rowland said in an interview. “A lot of them don’t even seem to know anything about it. The ones that do just said, ‘Hang in there.’ But it hasn’t really affected anything that’s gone on here.”
Rowland and other Republican governors met with President Bush over the weekend. Bush greeted Rowland warmly and slapped him on the back, also telling him to “hang in there.”
At the White House, Rowland and his colleagues met with senators and Cabinet members to discuss the proposed disbursement formula in the $318 billion highway spending bill, which would give Connecticut the smallest increase in highway funding of any state.
“The transportation issue has been an important one,” Rowland said. “The formula in particular is not working for us.”
The Pentagon also created an important issue for Connecticut when it canceled the $39 billion Comanche helicopter program. Stratford-based Sikorsky Aircraft unit of United Technologies Corp. teamed up with the Boeing Co. to develop the helicopter, which it started building last August in a new Bridgeport facility.
“The big issue is the Comanche helicopter being cut,” Rowland said. “So we are busy putting the fire out on that one.”
Army leaders said at a press conference Monday they planned to divert billions of dollars earmarked for Comanches to buy and modernize other helicopters.
Rowland met Tuesday with Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., to discuss how to reverse the Comanche decision.
“It simply doesn’t make sense to pull the plug on the Comanche,” Dodd said in a statement Monday. “Obviously, this will not be an easy fight, but I intend to work with other members of the Connecticut congressional delegation to seek to retain the Comanche as part of our military arsenal.”
Lieberman expressed a similar concern.
“I am outraged by the Army’s decision to terminate the Comanche program,” Lieberman said in a statement Monday. “Canceling Comanche will not only cost jobs, it could also weaken our national security—something I am determined to prevent.”
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.
