Transcript for Show 2105
Friday, February 2 at 9:30 p.m.
Sunday, February 4 at 11 a.m
Monday, February 5 at 11 p.m.
>> I'm Steve Kotchko.
Welcome to another edition of "On The Record."
First a look at this week's state headlines:
Connecticut has a civil union's law, but gay advocates want
to go a step further with full legal recognition of same
sex marriage.
Opponents say that's one step too far.
We'll debate that issue in our "newsmakers" segment.
Also, there's a call for a return to highway tolls to pay
for transportation improvements in Connecticut.
State Republicans choose a new chairman, veteran
campaigner Christopher Healy…
And, surveillance videotape of two Democratic legislative
employees rifling through the desk of a GOP co-worker may
signal political bad blood at the capitol.
We'll discuss that in our roundtable segment.
So stay with us!
Steve Kotchko
>>My guests this week in our newsmakers segment are Anne
Stanback, executive director of the group "Love Makes A
Family; and Peter Wolfgang, director of public policy for the
Family Institute of Connecticut.
And we'll talk about civil unions and full recognition of
same-sex marriage and Anne, let me ask you this first:
The civil union law took effect in October of 2005.
And it gave same-sex couples many rights and privileges
tied to marriage and ceremony.
Why is it necessary now for gay rights groups to say we
need to go that step further, we need to have full recognition in definition of marriage?
Anne Stanback
>> Well, Steve, I think you remember back two years ago, I
think I was on your show for this, and we were very clear
then that the goal was not civil unions, it was marriage.
Civil union provides important rights and protections, but
I think most people would agree that marriage is more than
just a bundle of rights. It is a universal language, it is an
institution that matters to same-sex couples as much as it
matters to heterosexual couples.
Steve Kotchko
>> and Peter, what is wrong with that?
Your group opposes going this route.
What's wrong with it?
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, we also said at the time of the civil union's law
passing, that it wouldn't stop here in that this wasn't
really about a rights argument that what this was really
about was changing society's definition of what marriage
and the family is.
Something that we argued would harm children, would harm
women, would harm society.
And so we feel like, we can come back now and say, we told
you so, I mean, Anne's organization did say all along, yes,
we're not going to stop at civil unions but there were
folks in the legislature who were in kind of this squishy
middle who felt this was the final compromise.
This is the final resolution of this, we passed civil
unions, and this issue will go away and I think both
Anne's group and our group said no, it is not.
It is not going to stop here and the Family Institute said
it is not going to stop here, because this really isn't
about rights, it is about changing the definition of what
marriage is in society. So here we are.
Steve Kotchko
>> Well, can you explain a little bit more what you mean
when you say changing the definition of marriage and
family, and how that would be harmful.
Peter Wolfgang
>> Sure.
Marriage isn't and always has been for the most part in
almost every culture in every time throughout society, the
union of a man and a woman.
There have been deviations, here and there, but for the
most part, marriage has been recognized and it is really a
pre-political association it predates any sort of law or nation state.
It is a natural institution ridden written into the nature of humanity
that marriage is the union of man and a woman.
What we've experienced here in the United States, beginning
since the 1970s, is a sort of tinkering with marriage that has
altered it in ways that are detrimental to society.
Think about the no-fault divorce revolution in the 1970's.
At the time this was sold to us as a reform that would be
liberating.
And what we have learned by about the 1990s was that, this was
not the case that it ultimately proved very harmful for children, that
we now live in a world where children are much less likely to be raised in a home with both a mother and father, and social science data is increasingly showing particularly by the '90s, there seems
to be a consensus building that children do need a home with both the mother and father.
Steve Kotchko
>> Anne you have heard this argument before, that time and tradition are on the side of traditional marriage between a man and woman.
Why should that be changed?
Anne Stanback
>>Well, I don't think you're changing the definition of marriage simply by removing barriers that are excluding one group of people, from having access to that institution.
We're talking about couples who have been together in many
cases for decades, and decades, who are raising children,
who are paying their taxes, and active in their community.
I think that, the Family Institute has raised different arguments through the six years that we've been having this debate.
And, from the issue of this will harm existing marriages, to
somehow this harms children.
Those arguments have been dismissed not only by every reputable child welfare organization, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Psychological Association, but it is also been dismissed by the Connecticut legislature who passed a law in 2000 allowing same-sex couples to adopt. This won't hurt children.
In fact, it will help the children who are already being raised by same-sex couples, to eliminate the stigma.
They understand that marriage and civil union are different.
I think they are very few people who would trade their
marriage for a civil union because they understand it.
Steve Kotchko
>> Peter, your cohort Brian Brown, the director of your
organization said the other day at the press conference
that you had in opposing this legislation that in
Massachusetts, where marriage has been legal, legalized
between same-sex couples, that you are starting to get
some impact on religious organizations.
That the Catholic church, I believe you said, had to stop
adoptions because they no longer feel that they have the
right to say we don't want to give a child to a same-sex
couple.
Are you saying, and when I seem to hear in making is, it
isn't just about simple marriage, that it is starting to
affect religious organizations, is that your claim?
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, as Anne said, we have about half a dozen or so
very detailed arguments as to why same-sex marriage is bad
for society.
And Anne and her organization have said, look, same-sex
marriage has happened in Massachusetts, civil unions have
happened in Connecticut and the sky has not fallen.
and we never claim that if that happened in the next day
there would be a meteor shower from the sky, lightening would
strike. It took about 30 years for us to see the full effects that
the no-fault divorce revolution, unilateral divorce would
have on society, on families and children.
But already we are beginning to see the effects that
same-sex marriage has on religious liberty in
Massachusetts, as Brian mentioned, the other day, Catholic
charities which had been in the city of Boston, had been
providing adoption services for about 100 years to needy
children, after the passage of same-sex marriage was faced
with a choice:
Either you place those children, some of those children in
homes with same-sex couples, or you cannot provide adoptions.
Forced with the untenable choice, Catholic charities did the only
thing they thought they could to not be forced to violate their beliefs.
They had to get out of the adoption business.
Steve Kotchko
>> Can you answer that?
Peter Wolfgang
>> …and that's one of a whole slew of attacks on religious liberty.
Steve Kotchko
Ok, well let's stick to that one point, because that was mentioned.
Can you answer that?
Anne Stanback
>> Well, we passed adoption in 2000 and we've been able to
work that out here in Connecticut.
Changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry would
have no requirement that any religious institution would
have to recognize those marriages, nor would they have to
perform them.
This is civil marriage, and I think that people understand
that we're not trying to infringe on any kind of religious
liberty.
In fact there are very strong religious voices in support
of this because there are many churches and synagogues who
already perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.
Those churches in a sense are being discriminated against
because, the state doesn't recognize what they have chosen
to call marriage.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about something you said and you were
quoting a politician in Colorado who said something to the
effect of, same-sex marriage isn't a threat to marriage,
divorce is a threat to marriage.
Infidelity is a threat to marriage, domestic violence is a
threat to marriage.
Would you elaborate on that point?
Anne Stanback
>> Yes.
Marriage is not a threat to marriage.
I think that the Family Institute, Peter, and others talk
about marriage needing to be protected.
I think that when you add thousands and thousands of
couples who have been together for years and years who are
taking this so seriously, that what we will see happen is
the institution will be strengthened not weakened.
Steve Kotchko
>> Peter, since you mentioned divorce, how do you answer
that point?
If more people are saying rather than living the single
life, whether they are gay or straight, and they are
saying we want to get married, we want to make a
commitment, we want to be part of the institution of
marriage, how is that a bad thing?
Peter Wolfgang
>> What we've seen in jurisdictions where the same-sex
marriage agenda is further advanced from what it is yet
here in Connecticut, particularly in Scandinavian and
other countries in western Europe, is that, when same-sex
marriage becomes more accepted in law and in culture,
through the decline of marriage overall that less people
seem interested in entering into traditional marriage,
that when traditional marriage becomes just one item on a
sort of do it yourself salad bar, whether it is
traditional marriage, or co-habitating with your loved one
outside of marriage.
When it becomes one option among many and when society
doesn't hold up traditional marriage as something to be
prized and privileged and encouraged, less people are
willing to enter it into.
Now, same-sex marriage didn't cause that, same-sex
marriage is in some sense, it is a product of it.
I mean, we had to get to this point.
We had to be 30 years into the divorce revolution, and
basically a decline in marriage culture that gay people
have nothing to do with.
We had to reach that point, I think in society, before
something like same-sex marriage could even become
thinkable.
But now that we're at that, and now that it is thinkable,
it will help accelerate this trend.
Steve Kotchko
>> Do you want to respond to that?
Anne Stanback
>> I think that there are threats to marriages as we just
mentioned, but, I don't think that marriage is as battered
as Peter seems to claim in this country.
And, I think it sort of goes back to a point, we wrestled
with two years ago, either the word marriage is not
important, and then why not let same-sex couples have
access to it.
Or, it is significantly important because it is such a
fundamental institution in our society, and then we would
argue, that the fair thing to do is to treat gay and
lesbian people equally under the state constitution and
allow us the fundamental right to marry.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you both a political question.
Civil unions was passed in 2005, and whether I think you
are right, Peter, when you said a lot of people were
ambiguous or sitting on the fence about this, but people,
a lot of lawmakers I think looked at this as the usual
legislative compromise which is something lawmakers seek
on a host of issues.
Okay, now it is back to full recognition of marriage, the
Catholic church is going to be opposed to it, same-sex
marriage, and it is a hotter political issue.
What do both of you think are the chances that this Bill
would be even brought up for a formal vote this year?
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, it will certainly be brought up for a vote in the
judiciary committee.
I mean, Mike Lawler and Andrea McDonald are very much on
the side of Love Makes A Family.
They are the co-chairman of the committee, they control
the agenda, what Bills come up for hearing.
So the at the very least there will be a vote in the
judiciary committee.
Steve Kotchko
>> Do you think it will go farther than that?
Anne Stanback
>> I do.
I think that we will have a vote in the judiciary.
I think that we have a very strong committee this year.
I think that the Senate looks very strong, and I think
that once we get momentum going, there is the possibility
we could pass it this year.
Steve Kotchko
>> But the governor is on Peter's side, and has already
said up front that if this Bill came to her, she would veto it.
Granted, the Democrats have a veto-proof majority, but
that doesn't really mean anything on this issue, because
there are going to be some Democrats that are going to
vote against and it some Republicans that are going to
vote for it.
It is a personal issue, not a party line issue.
So, what does that do to the degree of difficulty in
getting this adopted?
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, there were 26 Democrats, I think, in the house,
that voted against this civil union Bill, and then there
was a larger number of Democrats who voted for an
amendment to the civil union Bill which passed, defining
marriage as a union of man and woman.
So, I think that Anne and her allies have a very high
obstacle to overcome in the house.
She may be right about the Senate.
I don't know.
But, I don't see it getting through the house.
Steve Kotchko
>> There is a parallel course here, there is the same
issue is working itself through the Connecticut court
system, with the state Supreme Court expected to take up
the issue as to whether or not the constitution and other
provisions allow for same-sex marriage.
How do you see that playing into the whole political
drama?
Anne Stanback
>> Well, it is moving forward, who I hope will not happen
is, that the legislature will use that as an excuse to -
Steve Kotchko
>> Lawmakers use it as an excuse?
Anne Stanback
>> I certainly hoped they wouldn't.
Steve Kotchko
>> That would be such a rare occasion if that happens.
Anne Stanback
>> But both branches of government, judicial branch and
the legislative branch, have a responsibility to end
discrimination where they find so it I hope that the
legislature will not wait.
If it is discrimination there is no reason to let it
continue.
Steve Kotchko
>> But, Peter, there are past examples of lawmakers
waiting for the court to decide.
So, they can say, well, the court told us we have to do
this.
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, this is why we're arguing that we ought to let
the people decide.
We commissioned a Harris interactive poll, a very reputable
polling firm about two years ago which noted that 78% of
state voters recognize that marriage is a union of man and
woman, 76% want the right to vote on it, even the
Quinnipiac and UConn polls show wherever the public may be
in Connecticut on civil unions, most people do
oppose same-sex marriage. In every single state but one,
where this has come up for a vote, and I think there were
other complications in Arizona where we lost, but in
scores of states throughout the country, we always win, when
this is put to a vote.
Just this past November, in Wisconsin, which is a blue
state, marriage protection law passed by a huge margin, a
landslide, Oregon, a state so liberal they have assisted suicide
still by about 57%.
And we usually win by about 70%.
Steve Kotchko
>> What would be wrong with having a referendum on it if
it is such, if it is an issue that affects so many people,
marriage, why not have a referendum?
Anne Stanback
>> Well, there are a couple of reasons, first of all, we
don't put, we should not put minority rights on the ballot
to be voted on by the majority.
If the U.S. Supreme Court had done that in 1967 in the
Loving versus Virginia case that struck down bans on
interracial marriage, if they had listened to the polls, they
wouldn't have struck down the bans because a strong
majority of people opposed interracial marriage.
I think that the other reason that it really doesn't make
sense is how do you choose what issues should be on the
ballot?
Why this issue of marriage and not healthcare reform or
interview regulation or the death penalty, and I think,
finally, the issue is that we live in a representative
democracy.
We, the people elect legislators, to make those decisions,
and there is a referendum, it is every two years, and it
is call an election.
Steve Kotchko
>> We don't have an initiative and referendum law in
Connecticut at the present time.
I will point that out.
Let me -- time is running out and I want to ask another
question.
Representative Lawler, the co-chair of the judiciary
committee said the other day, at a press conference and he
was supporting Anne's point of view.
He said the topic here really isn't marriage, it is homosexuality.
That there is still a lingering resistance out there among
various parts of the populous and that's what this argument is
all about.
Is that true, Peter?
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, I don't know, for Representative Lawler, perhaps
it is about homosexuality but for a lot of us, it is about
marriage, it is about what is marriage, marriage is a
public good and how is it in the best interests of society
to redefine it into something it has never been.
Anne Stanback
>> Marriage is a public good, and why should we exclude
anyone from that important institution?
Steve Kotchko
>> What is the next step that's going to happen here?
A judiciary a full hearing at the judiciary committee?
Anne Stanback
>> the Bill not yet been drafted. I expect that it will be in the next several weeks or so.
There will be a public hearing in the judiciary committee
and a vote after that.
And we hope that it will then go on to either the house or
the Senate for a full debate.
I think that the legislature is ready for that debate and
so is the state of Connecticut.
Steve Kotchko
>> Should that happen or not, the full course of the
action here, the committee and the vote in the house and
Senate?
Peter Wolfgang
>> Well, Governor Rell has already said that she'll veto it.
They don't have the majorities to override a Rell veto on
this, so with everything else that we're dealing with this
year, with electric rates, with budget, with taxes, why are
we wasting the people's elected representative time and
energy on this when we know it is going the fail this
year.
Steve Kotchko
>> All right, we'll leave it there.
Stay tuned.
We'll be back with the round table segment in a moment.
Steve Kotchko
>> My guests this week in our round table segment are Mark
Pazniokas, who is with the state capitol bureau of The
Hartford Courant and Av Harris, who is capitol reporter for WNPR,
Connecticut Public Radio.
We want to talk about an incident that occurred at the
capitol in the last week or so that has given the
indication, perhaps, of some political bad blood out there you
have two Democratic legislative workers who rifled a desk
of a GOP co-worker after hours and the Democrats say, it
was unprofessional, but it was just a prank.
Republican leaders say that it was something more than
that. And it should be investigated and some severe penalties
should arise.
First of all, do you think that this is any kind of an
indication that we're going to have some maybe above
average political bickering going on this year at the capitol?
Mark Pazniokas
>> I think it is. Larry Cafero, the house minority leader jumped
on this pretty quickly.
They had a meeting, chief of staff to chief of staff, trying to say how
should these two guys be disciplined. They weren't satisfied and
Larry went public with it that afternoon.
I think that the location of where the offense occurred had
something to do with it.
It was a government administration elections committee
which was the panel that investigated the governor's chief
of staff, and some of the fundraising improprieties, so I
think there was a little feeling of saying oh, all right,
this happened there, you guys investigated the governor so
we want you to look into this.
Steve Kotchko
>> And you also -- he said you were supposed to be the
committee that is looking into ethics and fostering
ethical behavior and look what happens in your own
committee, right?
Av Harris
>> Well, yes.
And I think there is also something a little more, maybe
subtle or behind the scenes here going on, is that Larry Cafero
was number two in the Republican minority for a while
under Bob Ward, now gets to be number one.
And he's a very different kind of Republican leader than
Bob Ward was.
Much more aggressive.
He's probably arguably the most articulate member of the
general assembly.
He's one who has been wielding the hatchet for many months on different issues, and he and Chris Caruso, the house chair of
the GA committee seem to have a particular way of pushing each
other's buttons.
If you remember, the night the last night of the session last year,
they almost came to blows on the floor of the house when those -- there was the campaign finance corrections Bill that came up just
a few minutes before midnight.
And I kind of view this as a way for Larry Cafero to send a message that there is sort of a new game in town that he's the -- he is the new sheriff in town in terms of the house Republicans, and it was interesting to see what Chris Caruso's reaction to these changes.
He kind of shrugged it off it. The other backdrop is --
Mark Pazniokas
>> They weren't his employees by the way. Because the weird way
it runs, Caruso has no supervisor authority over these guys.
Steve Kotchko
>> These were Senate Democratic employees.
Av Harris
>> Yes.
And Caruso was saying they're going to be investigated and if there is disciplinary problems, they'll be dealt with.
Again, bear in mind that Chris Caruso is widely thought to be running or in the running for mayor of Bridgeport and so there may be some issues where he wants to make more of a name for himself this year too.
Steve Kotchko
>> Well, Chris has never been one to be shy.
But let me drop something else in.
This is like the second intrigue incident we've had recently at the capital, prior to this one, we have had the whole Ken Krayeske episode where Democrats were charging this Republican administration and their state police department had a political enemies list and they went after this guy and arrested him on inauguration day because he was trying to take pictures of the governor more and they thought that he was a dangerous character.
This incident now with the Republican house leader coming
back at the Democrats, is this in anyway, do you think,
payback for that whole flap?
Mark Pazniokas
>> I haven't seen it in that context.
I saw it more in the context of them going after, them
being annoyed by Caruso's inquiry into the governor's
office.
There may be an element of it.
But, the thing that was raised to me more and more was,
GA is a committee, that have been the inquisitors, so
now, let's look at them.
Steve Kotchko
>> Well Av, also Larry Cafero said that he didn't like the
attitude of the Senate staffers that came back to him or
staff chief who said look, these are our employees and
we'll handle them and you are not going to have any say
in it. Cafero intimating there these are the Democrats,
they've got this veto-proof majority, and they're going to
push their weight around here.
Av Harris
>> That's right.
And that may be the other piece of seeing how the place is
going to be run now that there are veto-proof majorities by
the Democrats, both the house, and the senate.
They really don't have to get too -- to consult with the
Republicans on any of the major legislative initiatives,
that is provided that they can hold their caucuses together.
But, I think that again, had it been Bob Ward still in charge of
the Republican caucus, you may not have seen such an
aggressive response as Larry Cafero has done.
So, I think that you're right though, I think the Democrats may
be flexing a little bit of muscle and the Republicans may too.
But I think the big picture to this too is we have to keep in mind
that there are pretty serious financial troubles, that the state is
about to face.
Steve Kotchko
>> That's what I want to ask now the last two minutes or
so that we're here is that, we could look at this little thing as
inside baseball. The people watch this show to some degree are interested in inside baseball but for the bigger viewing public the
issues they care about are their electric Bills, healthcare, the budget, their taxes, if this kind of attitude is showing up now on small
points, what's going to happen when those issues are brought up
on the floor?
Mark Pazniokas
>> Larry Cafero has made it very clear, that the Republicans need
to redefine themselves, well not to redefine themselves but to establish their identity in a much sharper way.
Steve Kotchko
>> There are only 44 of them.
Mark Pazniokas
>> Exactly.
And there is only 44 out of 151 in the house. There is a feeling
they have nothing to lose. They have got to become more aggressive. Larry, as Av said, by nature is a more aggressive
guy. He enjoys political combat and has a new chief of staff,
George Gallo whose background is political consulting in
campaigns, there is a new Republican state chairman Chris
Healy who is on very good terms with George Gallo and Larry
Cafero. So there is a sense that the Republicans need to step it
up. And, what form that is going to take, we don't know yet. Larry
has said to most of us at the capitol, he did not view the last election as a repudiation of Republican core values of less government. That he viewed it as a national tide that victimized the local Republicans, whether that's true or not, we'll see. But, he clearly wants to be more aggressive, because they have to. Their relevance right now is in question. If it wasn't for Republican governor, they would have no say at all.
Steve Kotchko
>> We have about 30 seconds left but what's your take on it.
Av Harris
>> I think that's true and I would add to that I have heard a little bit
of grumbling that maybe Governor Rell could have helped us maybe hold on to a few more seats or win some more. The other thing is, in terms of the redefinition of the Republicans at the state level, I see that as maybe trying to triangulate and could opt a few issues that had been thought of as traditionally Democratic issues, whether that's paying for college or money for a down payment on the home and some of those issues so it is going to be very interesting session and a realignment kind of a session.
Steve Kotchko
>> Well, we have about six months to see the battle, how the battle turns out. And that will have to do it for this week. We'll see you soon "On The Record."
Transcript of Show 2104...
Friday, January 26 at 9:30 p.m.
Sunday, January 28 at 10:30 a.m.
>> I'm Steve Kotchko, welcome to "On The Record."
First let's take a look at this week's state headlines.
State public safety commissioner, Leonard Boyle, head of the state police, is leaving, and some wonder if political interference by the governor's chief of staff is the cause.
In legislative news, Senate Democrats propose a healthcare reform package while Senate Republicans want tougher penalties for sex offenders who prey on children.
Also, State House Speaker James Amann has an ambitious list of priority issues, but can he manage his big 107-member majority to achieve those goals.
We'll ask the speaker about that in our "newsmaker" segment.
And finally, Senator Christopher Dodd, now running for president, is barely visible in the national polls.
Does that spell disaster?
We'll talk with pollster Doug Schwartz in our "roundtable" segment.
So stay with us!
Steve Kotchko
>> My guest this week on our "newsmaker" segment is Democratic House Speaker James Amann, as we said in our headlines, you have a huge caucus this time around.
I guess your election campaigns were very successful.
151 members in the house.
107 are Democrats, just 44 are Republicans.
Now before we get going, I want to ask you how you're going to manage that.
But I have a "jeopardy" question for you, no prizes.
Do you know if that 107 to 44 is the largest difference like that in the modern era when we have 151 reps or has it ever been larger than that?
James Amann
>> The answer is, no. It is not the largest.
The largest was 118 I believe, it was after the Ronald Reagan landslide of the '84 if I'm correct.
Steve Kotchko
>> You are partially correct. It was 118 to 33, but it was 1975-1976.
It was the post Watergate election.
James Amann
>> You are correct. I should have known that.
Steve Kotchko
>> Right after Watergate the party lever was still in affect.
So anyway, it has been larger than this obviously.
But still 107 members is pretty powerful.
Now however, there are pros and cons to that when you have that many Democrats to keep happy.
How are you handling that?
You have committee chairmanships, leadership posts, that kind of thing.
Plus, all these lawmakers have things they want to get done when you have that many members, can it become so unwieldy that it is actually difficult to develop a cohesive vote on key issues?
James Amann
>> What a great problem to have.
You know, as I said before, I like to have 150 Democrats and Larry Cafero that would be a lot of fun.
And I say that to Larry fooling around.
Bottom line is, whether it be 99, 107, my job is try to be like captain of the team. I've had a way over the last three years of allowing my freshman to learn the process. I felt that one of the main things to do as speaker is get back to learning how this place really should operate.
So I've concentrated on each freshman class and let them know that their expectations are not to be gaining leadership posts or chairman's posts right out of the gate.
It is going to take time for them to work it.
So the bigger the caucus gets I have to constantly remind people to be patient.
And to learn about how to do their job properly.
Make sure they worry about their constituency.
And it's been fun.
We've got a great team.
For the most part everybody really has good relationship and a lot of fun.
The caucus room can be a little wild but, beyond that it's really really been a pleasure to be with this new class.
Steve Kotchko
>> Well let me tell you I am older than you, Jim,
James Amann
>>Not by much.
Steve Kotchko
And I have been at the capital longer.
You started -- i don't know about that.
You started in '91, right?
James Amann
Yes.
Steve Kotchko
>>I was there for the 1975-76 legislature and for subsequent ones when they were also, you had Democratic House, Democratic Senate and Democratic Governor.
And what would be perceived as ideal conditions, problems did develop.
There were what usually happens in a caucus this big is that little mini caucuses develop, whether it be conservative reps or Democrats or liberal Democrats or urban Democrats.
And sometimes these folks say, you know, we're not going to do what the speaker wants until we get heard and what we get what we think that we need.
What is the danger of, when you have a huge caucus like that of developing these little mini groups within it that may have their own interests and decide that they want to take the speaker on to get what they want.
James Amann
>> I think because many of us live through a leadership team that came from the top down, and a lot of us were extremely frustrated for years, chairman, leaders, that we were not allowed in the room-- we weren't allowed to put our voices forward to make change of doing the things we believed our constituents wanted.
Sometimes the process the committee chairman we'd pass a bill just to have leaders basically at the end of time, roll it up, throw in the garbage call it a day.
I think where our strength has been, right now with this the last three years of leadership team, is that we make sure that rank and file as soon as they can they come in, that they are part of the team, they are part of the caucus and their voices are to be heard.
Not to say freshmen, just keep your mouth shut, don't say anything.
We encourage them to share their ideas, what did they hear from the constituents.
We've empowered them as rank and file members and as the chairs that they have the power also to develop policy.
Most importantly, and I know I bore you guys to death as press folks when I say caucus makes all the final decisions.
We really do.
We go in there, we close the doors.
We get a consensus on a bill then we move forward.
Consensus is either we are going to do the bill or not. The caucus is the final stop.
It is not the speaker.
So I think if people feel part of a team, and they have great friendships---it really seems right now that this as of today that cohesive feeling is in the Democratic caucus.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about that caucus mentality of whatever a key issue comes up you debated in caucus before you bring it out for a vote.
Again, on the surface that sounds great.
Everybody gets a chance to say what they want.
But when you have this and I know you've done this over the last few years.
But when you have a caucus that large with so many opinions and maybe some alliances in there, what is the danger that when you present a bill and say, okay, folks, what do you think about it.
That it turns into a debate that go on literally for several days or nights depending when you folks want to meet.
With people yelling at each other and fueling the debate to the point where it's more like a, I hate to say this, a stack of squalling cats rather than people trying to reason.
If people stick to the convictions in any organization and refuse to budge or get angry at the other side and they just keeps happening day after day.
What's the danger that that turns more into chaos rather than reasoned judgment leading to good legislation?
James Amann
>> Well, it could happen.
But I think we really are conscious of really listening.
A lot of times remembering caucus, when people wanted -- there was like a list of people that wanted to speak, the leaders would look at their watch with 20 more people ready get ready to get up and speak and they would say that is it, let's go.
Well of course every time you do that those 20 or 30 people start to get a little irritated.
As long as the caucuses become sometimes we make sure that every single person is heard.
And believe me, you get tired standing there listening to speech after speech sometimes, built it's important that they feel part of it.
And I also try if there's a problem, I really do care about the caucus and I do sit down one on one with them individually if they have a problem and for the most part I've really become a good listener.
My wife might disagree with that
But I think I really have been treating---I've been a better listener than I used to be.
And understand that they have constituents that they---I started where they were one day too, and it's my job to try to move them forward.
So, listen right now we've had three good years.
We really try to get the freshman class involved right away.
You saw the other day; they came out with their own idea.
They need to explore more, I encourage that of them.
And hey, so far so good.
We'll see what happens.
Maybe next year we'll have the -- we'll have the answer to what the hell happened in caucus. But right now, so far so good.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about the other members ever the house, the remaining 44.
Because technically speaking, house speaker as a house office, you're not just a democratic leader you're elected by the entire house.
You have 44 Republicans -- Republicans, if you really want to throw your weight around you can say, we don't need to talk to you, we've got 107 Democrats.
It's a veto-proof majority we'll do what we want you folks going along or not.
We don't really care.
Is that going to be your attitude?
James Amann
>> Hopefully it hasn't been.
Larry Cafero and I -
Steve Kotchko
>> The House Republican leader.
James Amann
>> He's the Minority leader.
And Larry and I newly elected.
We came through the process together.
We were extremely good friends.
We've had many a good night together.
He's a great, you know, he's got a great sense of humor.
So I told Larry that, Larry, you know, my door is always been open if leaders don't choose to come up here and visit me that's on your shoulders, not on mine.
Larry has already did something that Bob Ward didn't do-- he's come up, he's talked, he's told me his issues. We've talked about things we can work together on and things that we disagree on.
And I think that's really going to show that in the next year or so that the bipartisanship, I hope it's even going to be better than it has been.
I think the same thing is showing respect.
You know Newt Gingrich when he came in flexing his muscles back in 1994 -- -- am I right this time? I can't believe I missed the Nixon question, when he came in he was flexing his muscles we're going to take over the world.
Well you know, cocky attitudes, you know what happens with people with attitudes like this, they don't last that long.
I rather say that -- they represent a good chunk of the Connecticut residents, over a million people themselves.
So you need to show them respect because as my Dad once said, you know, the guy that you're kicking in the butt today some day you might have to do something else.
You know what that means.
Always make sure that you treat people with respect, at least listen to them try to find the common ground.
And they do have a good idea -
Steve Kotchko
>> As long as you're talking about respect.
Let me ask you about your respect for the Governor.
Because I know the Democrats like to say we have mandate from the people because we have even bigger majorities than we had last time.
By the same token you have a governor that blew away the Democratic candidate by a big margin.
She can claim mandate, too.
Now I know that on paper you have a veto-proof majority, both in the House and Senate.
So is that going to mean that from now on the Democrats are going to crank out a lot of legislation, don't really care if the Governor vetoes it or not because you've got the votes to be able to overturn them?
James Amann
>> Same thing.
We've had two great years with this governor.
I think we really accomplished a lot together.
Whether it be transportation, stem cell research, preschool, after school programs, more money to municipalities, we can go on and on of the record that this general assembly along with this governor have accomplished.
So why would we change?
Yes, so we're at 107.
You know what though, as you know you need 101.
And that's not an easy task.
And even if I got my 103, 104, 105, like to have a little cushion, the senate only needs one to go south.
And the Governor certainly has powers where she can persuade certain legislators.
And that's the last thing I know Lowell Weicker, Governor Weicker did that very well in the income tax debate.
We had a caucus and we were 36 strong and then we were 34 strong and then we were 27 strong.
They were getting picked off left and right.
You know what happened, the new fire house being built and these sorts of things.
I don't want to have to get to a situation of having to make decision to override a veto.
Rather work out as best we can for the citizens of Connecticut, if the time comes like the contracting bill again, if it's one of those.
Then we probably something like that, there's no change.
We'll probably go for it on the bill.
I don't foresee it nor do I want to have that happen in this session.
You guys would rather not that have that, but it will make my life easier.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about a couple of key issues.
Energy, everybody's electric bills are going up.
People are steamed they want some action.
I know that you have talked about this.
Let me ask you one thing.
When you talked about, you said there are no magic bullets; there are no quick and easy answers about this because it took a long time to develop.
You mentioned variety of factors; Foreign oil, prices, damage to refineries in Katrina.
You named a good list.
But you know what you left out.
You never mentioned the fact that the legislature is partly responsible nor by passing deregulation.
That's not a small issue.
James Amann
>> I think I did.
Steve Kotchko
>> I don't have the tape with me.
James Amann
>> I apologize.
Steve Kotchko
>>But the bottom line would be you do acknowledge that that was part of the problem.
James Amann
>> No doubt about it. Nobody could have predicted some of the other factors.
Steve Kotchko
>> So how do we get oit of this situation with rising electricity?
Is there anything that the house or the legislature as a whole can do to help consumers?
James Amann
>> I tried to tell everybody, every opportunity I can, I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to say it here, there's no quick fix.
I've had call from one of my friends back home say, "Jimmy you just roll it back."
We can't roll it back because it's going to cost them more money in the future.
You can't delay like the governor wanted because it's going to cost us more money.
We have to understand that we have to have radical change that you are going to stick with the old technologies that we've been depending on…on oil and gas.
That's what drives the biggest cost of our electric rates.
If you allow shareholders to be part of this process of making these sort of profits not the consumer you're not going to be able to do anything.
FERC, There's no federal policy, FERC, DPUC here in Connecticut and nothing changes.
We're going to continue down this path.
I look for us to say that we do need to do a few things.
Maybe we talk about letting some of the companies get back in the generating business.
We should have some sort of regulations.
Maybe not fully regulated but some sort of regulations to keep costs down for the consumers.
We need to invest.
The Republicans say they want to give 100 million back surplus on the utility--.
I'd rather see if they want to spend that $100 million. Why don't they take that 100 million dollars with some of the great small companies we have growing here with the hydrogen companies, the wind and solar and biodiesel and fuel cell.
I'd rather see us invest as we did with the film industry to create incentives to grow and create jobs.
That's the future of the state of Connecticut.
But when you hear windfall taxes and when you hear the arguments, let's just delay everything - it's appeasing people, it's only going to cost us more in the long run. We need to nip it in the bud now.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about the other big issue.
We mentioned in our headlines this week that your colleague, Senate Democrats proposed healthcare plan.
I've heard in the campaign last year Democrats kept talking universal healthcare, healthcare for all.
Senate colleagues put out plan they admitted up front, it is only going to cover about 40% of the folks who are uninsured.
Not exactly healthcare for all.
What are house democrats going to do?
What is legislation going to do as a whole on the healthcare issue?
James Amann
>> Well the debate is just starting amongst us. There is difference of opinion in our democratic house caucus.
Some want to have a one-pay system.
Some want public-private system.
That debate is starting to come together.
I personally have said listen, we were looking as Massachusetts as one to follow at least for the foundation, there's some good things there in that plan that we can follow.
However, there's lot of problems with that Massachusetts plan.
The other plans that we've seen out there really aren't what I would like to see for Connecticut.
Why not the husky plan that we already have, something that is very successful program but has some minor problems.
One, reimbursement.
A doctor office is a business just like you go into a CVS or any place, those are businesses.
They need to have proper -- have the proper reimbursements in order to take care of the kids, and some adults.
Dentists are the same way.
So reimbursement is part of the problem.
But if you're not doing what we're doing which will be subcommittees coming out next couple of weeks to talk about.
We have cutting waste in the system.
Waste in the system we can reduce by 25% gives you dollars to reinvest back into the system.
If you don't address waste you're not going to do anything to pay for the system.
You need to also talk about personal responsibility and healthcare and education in your own healtyhcare.
Prevention care, accessibility, affordability.
Those things we can do already with the Husky program that is already here and it has been very, very successful.
But while we need to do with the things I just talked about, reimbursement levels and have a funding source to do it.
There's present ever funding sources out there if you have the courage to go and talk about it.
One, always talked about a millionaire tax maybe one we should think about if we want to get this done.
We have a smoking cessation tax.
Where is that money going now?
$ 110 million, $120 million, goes in the general fund.
Why do we take that money, where we're supposed to be used for healthcare.
or we have surplus.
Maybe -- there's plenty ways to do it.
Steve Kotchko
>> We'll see how that works out.
But right now we're out of time.
Stay tuned.
We'll be right back.
Steve Kotchko
>> My guest is this week in our roundtable segment is Doug Schwartz director of the Quinnipiac University poll and as we mentioned in our headlines today we want to talk a little about the presidential race and how polls are affecting them.
But before we do that, let me ask you about your track record in the past election.
You polled in both the gubernatorial race and U.S. Senate race and if my memory is correct, I don't know if you put any money on it with anybody,
but you did pretty well, correct, in both races?
Doug Schwartz
>> That's correct Steve, I didn't put any money on it.
But if I had I think I would have won a lot of money.
We really nailed the Democratic primary for United States Senator over the summer and also the general election for Senator.
I have to say I'm particularly proud of how our organization performed because there were some skeptics out there.
They were questioning whether or not the Quinnipiac poll would get it right.
In particular during the primary there was a question about, can you really poll on a primary?
Can you predict in such a low turn out election how the votes really kind of come out?
In addition to that, there is some other complicating factors.
It was the first time Connecticut had ever had a primary in August, when a lot of people are on vacation.
Then on top of that, you have sort of the opposite factor which would suggest more interest in the primary which was the war in Iraq giving a lot of passion to the Lamont side.
Steve Kotchko
>> People were also saying that it was impossible that a major party candidate, a Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger would only poll in the single numbers.
At some point Republicans would come home he would get at least 20% of the vote or something along those lines.
Your poll never said that would happen and it didn't happen.
Doug Schwartz
>> That's right. We had him in our final poll at 8%.and he only got 10%.
Steve Kotchko
>> Barely 10%.
Doug Schwartz
>> Barely 10%.
And there was another issue as well was ballot order.
Folks were saying that the poll can't predict the election because it can't take into account that Lieberman is at the bottom of the ballot and some people might not see him or vote for him simply because he's so low.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let's talk about our other Senator, Chris Dodd, who is trying for bigger things, running for president, wants to run for president.
Launched his campaign a few weeks ago and he's been out there even prior to that he was in Iowa, New Hampshire, the various early primary states trying to get his name known.
But at this point it doesn't seem to be working.
We've got a graph that I can we want to show you of the CNN poll and what you're going to see in that poll you're not seeing it, Doug, but I am, and our viewers are also, is you've got Hillary Clinton leading with 34% of the vote,
Barack Obama 18%, Senator Edwards at 15% and if you scroll down you will see Chris Dodd down there at 1% in the CNN poll which is pretty daunting.
Now, what I want to also do is go from there and show you if we can another poll that we looked at which is "Washington Post" ABC News poll.
Now in this one Hillary Clinton leading with 41%, Barack Obama has 17% and Chris Dodd with an asterisk next to his name and the meaning of that asterisk in that particular poll that is candidate who is polling less than 1%.
As a matter of fact less than .5%.
So here is Dodd walking out there in brave new world jumping into the race with the big names like Clinton and Obama and scoring very low early on.
But these polls get a lot of attention early on. Is it possible that if Dodd stays in that 1 or 2% range or below that his presidential campaign could be doomed because people just don't perceive him as a winner?
Doug Schwartz
>> Well right now he's a long shot, Steve, absolutely with such low numbers.
But it doesn't mean that it can't happen for Dodd.
You have to remember that a poll is a snapshot in time and things can change.
Right now Hillary is the front runner.
McCain is the front runner for the Republicans.
But that certainly can change over time.
I'm going to ask you now a trivia question, because I was watching the previous segment with Speaker Amann and can you tell me the last time we had an election in which neither the incumbent president or incumbent vice president was running for president?
Steve Kotchko
>> I can't right off the top of my head.
Doug Schwartz
>> 1952.
The reason why I am bringing that up is because it shows how wide open this election really is.
Steve Kotchko
>> And you have a huge field of candidates in both the Republican and Democratic races.
But one thing that is different between 1952 and now is the power of television and the power of all news networks. When the CNNs of the world and the MSNBC's of the world, the Fox News's of the world constantly refer to these polls every week and give you that horse race analysis and week after week you have the Clintons' and Obamas' up top and the Chris Dodds' down there at 1%.
Do the polls, because of that television coverage, become reality?
In other words, do people in the Iowas' and New Hampshires' say, Dodd just doesn't show up.
I don't know even though I heard Chris Dodd the other day at a supper he sounded good, but it doesn't seem like he's a winner according to the polls,
maybe I shouldn't jump on the bandwagon.
Doug Schwartz
>> No, because if you look at history you'll see that some of these long shots really have come back and surprised people.
Let me give you the example of Bill Clinton in 1992.
In October before the primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa, you know what he was in national polls?
He was at 1%.
He was a nobody.
And he surprised the world.
Now let me take you back to the most recent presidential election and here, maybe another piece of trivia for you but do you remember who was the front runner in the national polls for the Democrats in 2004 at this point in time?
Steve Kotchko
>> I was going to say John Kerry but that may be a mistake.
Doug Schwartz
>> Our very own Senator, Joe Lieberman, was the front runner in the national polls and we all know what happened, the presidential campaign fizzled in New Hampshire.
Steve Kotchko
>> So you're saying that the primary states that they are really going to be tested out there, that these folks don't go by the polls.
Doug Schwartz
>> That's right, they meet the candidates and they decide for themselves really how things are going to go. You never want to count out long shots.
Ned Lamont, right here in Connecticut going back to that, was such a long shot.
Steve Kotchko
>> Can we also look at it another way.
These are national polls, CNN /Washington Post poll.
There's lot of criticism about the early primary states being rural not representative of American life.
So in some ways are the national polls perhaps more accurate about what voters across the country feel rather than in an Iowa or New Hampshire?
Doug Schwartz
>> Sure I agree with you, the national polls certainly reflect how the national electorate is feeling and Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative.
I want to give you one other problem as I see it with the nomination process.
We've got dozen candidates on both sides right now for the average voter to try to distinguish between 12 candidates is very difficult task and I think this stems from our current system of primaries which is leading to this where anyone wants to run can run.
You might - the old system had problems-- picking candidates.
The party system smoke-filled back rooms, it had problems.
But we didn't have 12 candidates on both sides running.
Steve Kotchko
>> We have less than a minute left.
But you think that Chris Dodd then is right to invest his time, money, blood, sweat, tears, even if he's 1% or asterisk in the polls right now because you don't think that the poll ratings are going to stand?
Doug Schwartz
>> That's right. I wouldn't count Dodd out.
Steve Kotchko
>> But when does he have to show something?
Does he have to do it before the primaries begin?
Does he have to start to go up or just the primaries themselves?
Doug Schwartz
>> I don't think -- I think that what you want to watch are the Iowa polls and the New Hampshire ones. And also let's not forget about Nevada and South Carolina and there was even talk that New Jersey and Florida may move up.
I'd watch the early primary and caucus states.
Steve Kotchko
>> Okay.That's going to have to do it Doug
We'll see you next week "On The Record."
Transcript of Show 2103...
Friday, January 19 at 9:30 p.m.
Sunday, January 21 at 10:30 a.m.
Monday, January 22 at 11 p.m.
>> I'm Steve Kotchko, welcome to "On The Record".
First let's take a look at this week's state headlines.
Connecticut consumers are coping with rising electric rates, worrying about that proposed natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, and trying to figure out what happens next with gasoline prices.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is in the middle of all three battles and he's our guest in the Newsmaker segment.
Also state officials choose a Massachusetts educator Mark McQuillan to be Connecticut's new Commissioner of Education.
Republican Gov. Jodi Rell vows to fight any democratic moves to lessen her authority on state bonding projects.
And while one Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Dodd tries for the Democratic Presidential nomination, the other, Joe Lieberman, tries to find a new identity.
We'll discuss that topic in our Roundtable segment so stay tuned.
Steve Kotchko
>>As you heard our guest this week in our newsmaker segment is state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and, Dick, we brought you on today because there are so many energy-related issues that you're involved in we want to discuss them.
Let's get right it to.
I want to ask you about electric rates first.
We heard things from you, from the Governor, Legislature what should be done.
I guess the lingering question that I've asked others and I will ask you is, do you think there is anything significant that state government can do at this point considering the rates have gone up, are continuing to go up, any significant action that can be taken that will measurable lower electric rates for Connecticut customers?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> Well, Steve, I will tell you something that none of those other political figures or public officials have said, which is, yes.
We can lower rates.
We can provide refunds to individual consumers and families, through a windfall profits refund.
Very simple.
A refund of half of anything above 20% return on equity that is earned by those power generators.
And many of them are making 40 to 120%.
My proposal is very simply; put a credit on people's bills.
No money back to the state.
It's not a tax.
No money back to the general fund, directly to consumers, immediately.
Steve Kotchko
>> Who are those power generators?
Because at this point they are not what most people figure are the electric companies, like CL&P and UI they're not allowed to generate.
Who essentially would be getting that windfall tax or refund or whatever you want to call it from?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> It would be companies like Dominion NRG, PCSG, other companies, even ConEd because it is ultimately a generator.
That provides power that is ultimately distributed by CL&P and UI.
You're absolutely correct.
Deregulation has in effect knocked out UI and CL&P of the generating business, now they want to come back to it but in the meantime all they do is own the wires, so to speak, the transmission lines.
And they would not be the ones presumably earning windfall profits because they are regulated.
Their rates are still regulated.
But the real problem is, we've deregulated completely deregulated the generators, under the assumption there would be competition.
Steve Kotchko
>> On the windfall profits tax or refund how would that be possible?
Would the legislature order that?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> We would need legislation, no question, and then we would prevent it from being passed on.
The typical response to my plan is, the generators would simply raise their prices.
They couldn't by law they're barred from doing so.
Federal rules prevent it.
But second we would audit them and we would simply recover whatever they added.
Steve Kotchko
>> These people are selling us a product.
If you're telling them that to sell us that product they're going to have to give us X million dollars in windfall profits taxes or refunds, maybe they just don't want to sell us a product.
Maybe just won't sell electricity in Connecticut, could that happen, what would our recourse be?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> Absolutely not, Steve.
We're talking about letting them keep half of what they make above a return of 20%.
Most businesses would be delighted to have a 20% rate of return.
Think of investments that you might make, would you be satisfied with a one-fifth increase in what you've invested?
And that is a very generous, I think generous proposal.
Then they still keep half of it.
Those generators are not going to shun Connecticut.
Remember, we have the highest electricity rates on the continental United States, twice the national average.
Not just by a little bit larger but twice the national average, twice what they were just for years ago.
Our system is completely broken, it's dysfunctional.
One reason is -
Steve Kotchko
>> When you say system, you mean deregulation.
I know you've been critical of it.
You basically think that deregulation; again approved by the legislature several years ago, has been a failure.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> It has been a failure, but the failure's compounded by federal policies.
That affect the way we charge for electricity.
In effect those federal policies cause us, compel us to charge all consumers the highest price.
So if you're producing electricity from natural gas or oil, your costs have risen substantially.
If you are producing it from nuclear or coal which is almost 50% of all the electricity we have, your costs have risen not at all.
Steve Kotchko
>> If you say that the federal policies have contributed in a major way to our problem, can we then say that the state government and legislature of the governor and yourself can we work ourselves out of it using state power or would we still be blocked by the federal energy issues?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> My proposals are very simply designed to overcome the federal policies.
Your question is exactly right.
And we're suing the federal government right now to stop the surcharge that accounts for $800 million in increased electricity rates to save that money for consumers.
That lawsuit will take awhile to win.
I'm knocking on wood.
But your question is, can we overcome it, yes, through a windfall profits refund and through Connecticut energy authority.
Steve Kotchko
>> That was what I was going to ask.
Now have department of public utility control, that's the electric regulator at this point.
You're proposing an energy authority, would that be different from the DPUC, would it replace the DPUC?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> It would not replace the DPUC.
The DPUC has a role in regulating rates.
Its power should be reestablished.
In other words, deregulation should be eliminated.
But the Connecticut energy authority would provide low cost financing and most important, long-term contracts.
The reason why new plants aren't built in the state of Connecticut, they have been cited, they have been approved environmentally, local zoning, land use, but the lack of long term contracts is the central reason why we won't have plant building in Oxford or Middletown or other sites where they may be approved.
And the goal here is really to overcome these federal policies, which are absolutely unconscionable.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you one last question before I move to our next topic.
Do you feel, are you confident that the legislature will take concrete action this year to get something done?
Because we had a news conference this week with House Democratic leaders who said, yes, we're working on a bill.
But they would not give us a timeline on when they plan for action.
Do you think the legislature will act?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> I have learned, Steve, as a member of the legislature for six years before I became Attorney General that predicting what the legislature will do is a very hazardous activity.
So I offer no predictions.
I'm discouraged.
I will tell you right now discouraged by the fact that some of the legislative leaders are saying there is nothing we can do right away to provide relief for consumers.
The fact is, there is a specific concrete action we can take short term.
Windfall profits refund and longer term, a Connecticut energy authority, I hope the Governor and legislature will come through for consumers.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about Broadwater, that liquid natural gas terminal that is proposed for Long Island Sound.
I know you oppose it.
Very simple terms, why?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> In very simple terms, it's an environmental atrocity, an unconscionable security risk and an aesthetic monstrosity.
It will damage the quality of life on Long Island Sound and establish a facility four football fields long, 11 stories high, served by tankers that will require security zones, exclusion zones, miles wide around them as well as around the facility itself little less than a mile.
Irretrievable and irreversibly damage the environment, endanger security and really take public property, the sound belongs to us.
It's public trust land, water.
And without paying a dime to either Connecticut or New York, use Long Island Sound in a way that damages it.
Steve Kotchko
>> This facility would be in New York waters.
And I know federal energy regulatory commission has been all around the region and recently held hearings on Broadwater.
Built the plan itself would be in New York waters.
Does that lessen to a great degree what clout Connecticut has to say anything about it, either statutorily or with permits or with court action for that matter?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> This consortium, Broadwater, consisting of Shell Oil and TransCanada is building this facility conveniently in New York waters, depriving Connecticut of a direct role.
It will go before the New York state agencies where we will fight it.
It will go before the federal energy regulatory commission where we have a voice and we will fight it.
Eventually we may have to go to court but I'm determined to go to court if necessary and to go to the nation's highest court, United States Supreme Court because there are profound issues of law in the way that the federal energy act of 2005 degraded state's rights.
And the way this project can degrade Long Island Sound.
So we will continue to fight.
Steve Kotchko
>> I want to give you a question that one of our viewers brought up, before I do that I want to remind all our viewers that if you -- lot of times we have on our website the guest who will be on in the coming week.
If you have a question for that person that you would like us to ask, or if you want make comment about the program, feel free to e-mail us at otr@cptv.org.
We'll try to use it if we can.
We have a lady from Killingworth, who asked this question,
"If we oppose all new energy hours like Broadwater, where will we get the needed energy for the state of Connecticut?
Our energy bills would not be rising so exponentially she says if we had more available energy resources.
What new energy facilities would the attorney general support?"
Legitimate question.
Lot of times you're on record as opposing this, that and the other thing.
You see what she's asking.
What's your answer?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> Excellent question, I'm so glad that she asked this, because I have supported the 345kb transmission or distribution facilities which will enable more parts of Connecticut to be served by the plant that we have now.
I have favored construction of certain plants the Middletown clean energy facility, for example.
Unfortunately it hasn't been built because of lack of long-term contracts. I'm trying to overcome that problem as well as provide financing.
And third, I would support, strongly support measures to provide more natural gas to account.
Steve Kotchko
>> Would Broadwater do that?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> Very little to Connecticut, mostly to New York.
The vast bulk of that natural gas will go to New York which is the reason they give for having built it in New York waters.
Let me just say there are alternatives.
Very important question.
Alternatives that are safer and sounder than Broadwater, pipelines from New Jersey going directly to Long Island.
Pipelines perhaps expanded carrying natural gas from Canada.
The liquefied natural gas facility is exactly that, it brings liquefied natural gas from all parts of the world.
And those facilities have been proposed for elsewhere on the East coast.
In fact I will wager you, that the reason that Broadwater -
Steve Kotchko
>> You're on tape you realize.
I'm not sure we want to put money on the line.
Steve Kotchko
>> I will wager that these facilities will be built elsewhere on the East coast, perhaps as close as Boston, where there is one right now and where it could be expanded.
Maybe Rhode Island.
On shore, not off shore in an estuary that is a national treasure. Long Island Sound is a national treasure.
>> You are correct in that there are several proposals for LNG terminals all up and down the East coast.
Is this the case of many companies or consortiums trying to do it to see who gets in first, who gets it approved first and built first then the other ones will just go by the wayside.
Is that what's happening?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> Exactly right there.
There is insufficient need or demand for all of them.
And they are in a very brutal race, economically brutal race to win the right to build first.
And the point is, we should have a national energy policy that determines, where's the best place.
That point is crucial not only from an environmental standpoint but also a legal standpoint.
We ought to be building where it is most prudent and productive to do so.
Rather than having a race to the bottom, literally to the bottom.
Steve Kotchko
>> Last question before we move to the gasoline prices.
Do you think FERC -- up said before that FERC goes through the motions with public hearings then just rubber stamps things let's them happen.
Do you think that will happen here or not?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> You know, if this proposal is approved, Steve, it will be faith-based regulations.
The reason I say that is that there are more crucial unknowns about this project that should bar from approving it.
For example, they don't even know at this point how this huge facility is going to be anchored and moored on the bottom of the sound.
The design for anchoring system that is not yet before FERC.
There are so many unknowns here they would have to say that they're going to trust and have faith in Broadwater to do the right thing and I don't think they can certainly, should not adopt that kind of approach.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let me ask you about gasoline prices, they're up, they're down.
People don't seem to be as concerned about them right now because they're down, maybe when the summer driving season comes along they will be back in the spotlight.
Gulf Oil offered a new proposal this week, they say that possibly by Springtime they're going to give their customers a chance to lock in gasoline prices for say you want to buy 500 gallons of gasoline at $2.30 a gallon over the next five or six months.
You can lock it in.
I guess the very similar to what you would do with a home heating oil contract.
You're taking chance as to whether or not you think prices are going to go up or down.
But it's an option.
Is it a good option for consumers or are there hidden risks?
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
>> There are certainly hidden risks.
Let me give you few.
First of all there is the obvious risk, a lot of our heating oil customers are seeing it now where they locked into prices that proved to be above what the market is sustaining.
We've seen not just gasoline prices go down but crude, which is the reason that those gasoline prices have come down.
Natural gas has come down.
All much the energy, basic commodities are down.
And people take a risk that that trend will continue or at least stay at the level it is.
Second, and call me cynical if you wish, but somehow I have some degree of skepticism that a gasoline company is doing something that is altruistically good for consumers.
There has to be profit in it somewhere.
In fact just because you asked I will give you a third risk, which is people will be required as part of this system to make a deposit, let's say it's $800 on a $1600 contract.
I ask the question, what happens to the remaining money if consumers do not use all of that money that in effect is not a deposit in my view, but an advance or an equivalent of value in a card.
A gift certificate-like vehicle.
In which case they're entitled by law for that money back.
Steve Kotchko
>> We'll have to do -- we'll have people watch out for that plan if it does come in.
Thanks for being with us.
Stay tuned folks we'll be back with the roundtable segment.
Steve Kotchko
>>In our Roundtable segment today our guests are Susan Haigh a reported from
the Associated Press, Paul Hughes a reporter from The Waterbury Republican-American.
Both of these folks have covered politics in Connecticut for a while.
We want to talk about our two U.S. Senators instead of quietly going back to Washington this year seem to be churning up the political waters.
Let's start out with Chris Dodd.
He's running for president.
I guess some people would ask why, but we won't go there.
Let me ask the question this way, does Chris Dodd, who so far in most of the polls has just gotten a smattering, maybe less than 1% in most of the polls.
Does he stand a chance when you have I guess what you would call political mega stars in this game, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?
Susan Haigh
>> The political scientists that we've interviewed say that he's probably considered more of second tier candidate.
First tier would be first tier.
Steve Kotchko
>> Your Baracks and your Hillarys.
Susan Haigh
>> Right.
Not the mention the kind of money.
John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have about at least $50 million apiece, Chris Dodd has about five.
And Hillary Clinton has an amazing fundraising capacity where she can tap a lot of the big donors.
And also Chris Dodd is a liberal New Englander.
We've already had liberal New Englander as the candidate for the Democrats.
So --
>> John Kerry.
Susan Haigh
>> That's right.
Steve Kotchko
>> That worked out well.
Susan Haigh
>> A lot of the political scientists say that's a big strike against him.
He's hoping to win over that liberal base with his stances on education, children's issues, healthcare, bread and butter stuff.
Steve Kotchko
>> Paul, Chris Dodd is not political naive.
He's been around for a while. So with all of those hurdles that Sue just mentioned, why do you think he is in this race?
Paul Hughes
>> I think personal ambition, that's obviously a big part of it.
He's been in the senate, in congress now going on what, 30 years.
The state's longest serving senator even going back to the days where the legislature used to pick the U.S. Senators.
Maybe figures it's his turn now.
He wants to make a run for it.
Like we were just talking John Kerry, I don't think topped anybody's list as likely candidate for the Democrats in 2004.
So who's to say, Chris Dodd can't make that happen.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let's talk about money.
Let me ask you that.
Sue mentioned that because the other folks Barack and Hillary, they are stars; money is going to pour into the campaigns.
Does Chris Dodd have the ability to raise money?
Paul Hughes
>> He certainly has the ability to raise money.
The question is whether he'll have the ability to keep pace or raise enough money to keep pace or to keep his campaign out there with these two front-runners. He's always been largely supported by the financial and banking industries and I'm sure he can count on support from those industries, particularly with his position the senate.
Steve Kotchko
>> Going to what you both said, does Chris Dodd then more or less have to wait until somebody stumbles and falls?
Does he have to wait for Barack Obama because he hasn't been in the senate to make dramatic mistake borne out of inexperience, does Hillary Clinton have to make a mistake for second tier for like Chris Dodd to be able to step up?
Susan Haigh
>> I would assume so.
That has got to be part of the strategy.
At the same time hope that somehow he can differentiate himself from all the other folks, but at the same time that's a difficult position to be in.
There are still others that haven't even come out yet.
You have Bill Richardson, the Mayor -- the Governor of New Mexico.
He's pretty viable candidate who has got a lot of access to money. So, for all the candidates
It's difficult a wait and see thing to see how everybody else fares in the coming months.
Paul Hughes
>> Plus Hillary Clinton a lighting rod.
I'm sure there are Republicans hoping and praying that the Democrats -- because she's such polarizing politically divisive figure.
Certainly we saw the fall of Howard Dean in Iowa with that horrible scream.
I mean, suddenly the guy goes from leading contender to an also ran.
Based on a finish in a primary and his performance at a rally afterward.
Steve Kotchko
>> I think also, Dodd, is counting on the fact that because this is going to be an open seat.
Because Bush is not running again, you could have one of the largest candidate field in years here.
Not only in the Democratic side but Republican side as well when you put that many names and faces in to the mix, it's likely that they're going to some people that do well early and some that don't.
If as you say he's been waiting all this time, why not give it a shot see what happens.
Paul Hughes
>> Plus you have all the more candidates and primaries, the vote that much diffused and somebody like Chris Dodd could walk away with a big primary or significant showing in the primaries.
Steve Kotchko
>> Let's talk about our other senator, Joe Lieberman, who managed to survive the primary and everything else and go back to Washington and he is now calling himself an independent Democrat.
To me, it signals a bit of identity crisis going on for this Senator, too.
Let me ask you first, the Associated Press I think struggled with the idea how the label Joe Lieberman, should they put him as independent, independent democrat, I.D., D.I.
Now in older copy when they write stories about Joe Lieberman it's going to Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut.
Why did they decide on this?
Susan Haigh
>> Well it was decided that way because he ran as an independent and he's elected as independent.
It was simple as that.
It is being recorded in the senate as an I.D. after his name.
But I think you're noticing it not just the A.P. but other news media as well are using just the plain old "I."
And that's what he ran as and that's what he was elected as.
Steve Kotchko
>> Paul, Joe Lieberman continuing to support the Bush administration on the Iraq war despite all the trouble he saw in the election.
He's one of the few senators outspokenly has supported the troop surge strategy of President Bush.
You would think that this would not go down well with Democrats but Democrats in Washington sort of have to be careful about it.
They can't really tick Joe off because if he were to suddenly flip to the other side their majority in congress would be lost.
| 
