July 10, 2001

prh REAPPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE 7:00 P.M.

PRESIDING CHAIRMEN: Rep. Lyons

Sen. DeLuca

MEMBERS PRESENT:

SENATORS: Cappiello, Crisco, Sullivan

REPRESENTATIVES: Currey, O'Neill, Ward

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: Good evening to everybody. We'd like to start the hearing. And welcome to the second round of hearings for Connecticut Redistricting Committee.

As you know, tonight -- and we appreciate everybody being here and certainly welcome your comments. It's extremely important as we go through the process to hear from the public about your concerns about the community in which you live and your thoughts and ideas about how redistricting should occur.

As you know, we're focusing on redistricting both of Congress, for the State.

With me tonight is Senator DeLuca, who represents the Republicans and is the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate. Seated next to him is Senator Kevin Sullivan, who is the President Pro Tem of the Senate.

On my other side is Representative Bob Ward, who is the leader of the Minority Caucus in the House. Below me is Representative O'Neill, Representative Melodie Currey and Representative Joe Crisco.

SENATOR DeLUCA: Senator.

REPRESENTATIVE LYONS: And Senator -- oh, Senator. One of my favorite Senators. You'll still forgive me. Won't you? Although, it's actually an honor to be a member of the House. So that wasn't bad.

For your information, in case some of you wish to attend any more of the hearings, we are having another hearing tomorrow at 7:00 in Bridgeport and on Thursday in Norwich we will be having one also at 7:00. And next Tuesday, we will be holding a hearing both in the afternoon and in the evening in Hartford and that will begin at 2:00. And, clearly, we welcome all your comments and your considerations as we go through this process.

I think it's helpful to know that it's not simply the public hearing by which we can get your information. We do have a Website. There is the Internet. And we have an individual, Dan Duffy, who is a non-partisan staffer, in Hartford who is able to receive any type of information that you submit to us. And all of it becomes part of the public record and all of it we take into consideration as we go through what clearly is a very important process for each and every citizen of the state of Connecticut.

And, with that, I would like to begin the public testimony. There are a number of people signed up. We wish to hear all of your considerations. We clearly welcome them. But we understand, and I'm sure all of you do, the fact that we would like to have the opportunity to hear from everyone. So whatever you submit is part of the public record, whether it's verbally or in writing. And if you could focus your comments on what you clearly would like us to hear, recognizing there are a number of people after you who would also like to have the time and the opportunity to be heard?

So, with that, I believe the first gentleman -- and I do apologize if at any time I say your name incorrectly. So please bear with me. But it's Bob Mezzo. He's the Deputy Mayor of Naugatuck.

DEPUTY MAYOR MEZZO: Good evening, members of the committee.

REP. LYONS: Good evening.

DEPUTY MAYOR MEZZO: My name is Bob Mezzo. And I serve on the Borough of Naugatuck Board of Mayor and Burgesses as the Deputy Mayor. I'm here this evening representing Mayor Taf, who is away, and myself.

The Naugatuck River Valley is composed of seven cities and towns abutting the Naugatuck River, including Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Oxford, Seymour, Ansonia, Derby and the city of Shelton. The Valley is very much a progressive community, home to approximately 125,000 people.

The seven-town Valley is united in organizations such as the Alliance for Economic Growth, the Valley Council of Elected Officials, the Valley Arts Council, the Valley River Celebration, Telemedia Cable Television, and a new plastics cluster aimed at promoting and improving training and the job opportunities in the Valley's plastics industry.

Many of the Valley towns share additional connections as part of the Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, the Valley Regional Planning Agency, the Valley Enterprise Corridor Zone, Griffin Hospital, the Naugatuck Valley Health District, the Valley Transit District, the Valley United Way, the United Way of Naugatuck/Beacon Falls. And we share not one but three newspapers, the Valley Times, the Valley Gazette and the Naugatuck News.

Our families commute on Route 8. We share a proud and long-established tradition of high school athletic rivalries. And now in the Information Age, our region is even more connected than ever through the award-winning Website dedicated to the interests of the Valley, which is www.electronicvalley.org.

Finally, the strength and unity of the Valley was recently recognized nationally by the National Civics League as we were named 2000 All-America City.

I'm here this evening to describe the special pride we take in being residents of the Valley and happy that one of our own, Senator Joseph Crisco, is on the Redistricting Committee.

It's important, furthermore, that during redistricting our communities stay together. The problems associated with redistricting should not be further compounded by dividing our united, diverse and excellent community.

I respectfully ask the members of the Redistricting Committee to keep the Naugatuck Valley in one Congressional District anchored by the city of Waterbury.

The Naugatuck Valley has always shared a special relationship with the city of Waterbury. Route 8, the Naugatuck River, the Valley Rail Line continue to connect Waterbury to the Valley as its done for centuries.

The cities of Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Oxford and Waterbury all share part membership of the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region and also are common members of the same Council of Governments.

The Greater Waterbury Chamber serves over 1,000 businesses in the Greater Waterbury region, including members of Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, Oxford and Ansonia. The Naugatuck Valley Brownfields Initiative seeks to redevelop properties in the communities from Waterbury to Shelton and the Convention and Visitors Bureau shares four-town representation of Waterbury, Naugatuck, Beacon Falls and Oxford, as well as Seymour.

In addition, Naugatuck Valley Community College and the University of Connecticut, two institutions devoted to higher learning and educating our residents, are both located in Waterbury. The plans to expand the opportunities at the UConn Waterbury branch will serve to even draw more residents from the Valley to the city of Waterbury.

The river valley's special relationship with Waterbury dates back to the turn of the century as the Valley and Waterbury share the same industrial heritage in industries such as brass, copper, rubber and steel products.

Finally, Waterbury serves as the gateway to the Valley through the Route 8/Interstate 84 connection. And according to the Connecticut State Register and Manual, since 1911, six of the Valley towns, except for Shelton, have been with Waterbury in the same Congressional District.

The tradition of 90 years and our special relationship with Waterbury should be preserved. For us to continue our successes, we need to be linked together. Our ability to work together would be diminished if we needed to coordinate our efforts for Federal funding, for grants for education, for economic development, transportation and brownfields revitalization if we had to deal with two different Congressional Representatives.

The cities and towns of the Valley and Waterbury have stayed together through fires, through floods, through the pollution and the recovery of the Naugatuck River.

So I ask the members of the Redistricting Committee to honor the spirit of the Valley and keep our cities and towns together in one Congressional District anchored by and with the city of Waterbury.

Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer any questions any of the members of the Committee might have.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir, very much for your comments.

DEPUTY MAYOR MEZZO: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: We appreciate that.

The next speaker would be Representative Mike Jarjura.

REP. JARJURA: Madam Speaker, President Sullivan -- although, this is the Committee. So we're -- Chairs of the Committee, the Redistricting Committee, honorable colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it's a privilege and an honor to welcome you here to the fine city of Waterbury on behalf of myself and Representative Conway, who is here tonight.

Our Governor often, in a friendly sense, refers to Waterbury as the "center of the universe". And it is our hope that Waterbury will remain, as it is today, the center of the 5th Congressional District, as it should. Waterbury is the fifth-largest city in the state of Connecticut. It is the hub for our region.

I would like to just comment, though. One of the things here which may be an oddity is that Waterbury has a history of bouncing back between Democrat and Republican administration. And I think we should concentrate on making redistricting a healthy process and that we should try to make it so that we get the greatest maximum voter participation. Because isn't that what it's all about? The more we get people involved in government, interested in government, the better it is.

Now, that may not be a good thing sometimes for all of us who may be partisan, be it Democrat or Republican. But we should make it so that people have a fair shot, whatever they may be, Democrat or Republican, in all the five districts remaining in Connecticut as opposed to the six districts, but the five districts. so that their ideas matter more than whether they're one category or the other.

And I think that's a healthy process for the citizens of Connecticut. And it will be a healthy process for democracy because then the ideas count more than what our political persuasion is. We may not like that sometimes as partisans because then our feet is held to the fire and we have to really think and justify how we vote on issues. But I think it's a healthy process for our democracy. And I encourage this Committee to think of those issues as they deliberate further.

Thank you very much.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir, for your remarks.

I would also like to acknowledge that we have been joined by Senator Cappiello, who is also part of the Committee. And as Representative Jarjura mentioned, with us in the audience is Representative Conway, Representative Wasserman and Representative Wallace, who have also come to be part of the process.

And, with that, I believe the next speaker is Larry Butter.

LARRY BUTLER: Butler.

REP. LYONS: Butler. I apologize, sir. I have difficulty reading names. And if you might identify yourself?

LARRY BUTLER: Yes. Thank you. My name is Larry Butler. I'm an Alderman here in the city.

REP. LYONS: Welcome.

LARRY BUTLER: And welcome to Waterbury.

REP. LYONS: Thank you.

LARRY BUTLER: To the Committee, members of the General Assembly, I'd first like to also let you know that I am also the President of the Waterbury Democratic Club here in the city. But my comments here tonight are more reflected as a private citizen concerned about good government. And it starts with a single vote, a single vote that's going to be cast throughout the state of Connecticut.

I have to first say that it would probably help the whole state of Connecticut if this Committee, someone within the state, could start off by giving us a feel for what this Committee had in mind. You know, I know there's some rough draft out there or ideas of how the particular Congressional Districts may be changed. And it would have been very helpful to have some kind of brainstorm models that we could have actually spoke of.

I know we, the public, have the chance to give you -- you know, brainstorm a little bit and give you our sentiment. But I guess it's really important to know a little bit about what you're thinking, too, in terms of your brainstorming.

Furthermore, a little bit more about the State Representatives' Districts. That would have really been beneficial because, for those of us who live within Waterbury that at the current time has five State Representative Districts, a street, a river, a neighborhood, a park makes all the difference in the world when you start drawing these lines. So it would have really been helpful locally to see some models, if you will, of what people were deliberating or brainstorming on prior to a public hearing.

Maybe -- maybe this Committee, for the public hearings that are going to be held in subsequent cities, maybe you could just help those people in those cities by sharing something of that nature with some of the particular cities or towns. I know some State Representative Districts cover many towns. But, certainly, it would help the people and give you honest input.

I'll start off with my comments on the Congressional redistricting. And I think it's very important that you consider some of the aspects of what's important to the current configuration. As was alluded to earlier from our neighbor from Naugatuck, I think it's very important that when you consider these Districts, that you consider the geographic history, if you will, about the neighboring towns, how they grew together, what impact they've had over the years. Certainly, we feel very attached to all the other towns in the Naugatuck Valley, especially our neighbors to the south, Naugatuck.

Also, I think it's also important to look at the socio/economic similarities within the District. We have towns, cities, if you will, that are in the 5th Congressional District, such as Danbury, which we feel very much mirrors a lot of what Waterbury is about. And Meriden as well.

Any District that comes forward from this process, we would love to have the similar type of cities within it, such as a Danbury, a Meriden, because we know that they share very much the same socio/economic issues that we, Waterbury, have.

It's important to reflect on what State Representative Mike Jarjura brought forward in terms of Waterbury anchoring the 5th Congressional District. I think it's only fair that we again anchor one of these Districts, being the fifth-largest city here in the state.

And, finally, I just would like to say on the issue of the Congressional Districts that I think it's very, very important that we look in terms of what's really fair to all of the voters of the state of Connecticut.

Hopefully, for the 5th Congressional District, we will be in a District that, hopefully, has cities such as Danbury and Meriden. Also, we very much want to make sure that we maintain our association with the rest of the Naugatuck Valley. So, hopefully, you will consider that in your deliberations.

Going forward to the State Representative Districts, this is very important here in the city of Waterbury because, as we are having our financial, you know, crisis here in the city, one of the things that is probably the glue that holds this whole city together, even in the face of the largest adversity this city has probably even seen, is our neighborhoods, our communities.

When it's all said -- you know, when all has been said and done here and we've really climbed out of this economic dilemma, what's going to be really, really a part of the solution to all of it is our neighborhoods.

We have great neighborhood settings where there's clusters of neighborhoods that come together and really make the city what it is. And this is very important when you start talking about the State Representative Districts not to divide up these neighborhoods and these communities. It's important that those neighborhoods, those neighborhoods and those neighborhood associations, are closely, as much as possible, adhered to when we're putting together these State Representative Districts.

And, hopefully, in terms -- looking at these neighborhoods in terms of forming Districts that are very contiguous, if you will, and making sure that they maintain their, you know, their roots that they've had forever, from the beginning of the city's history. It goes back that long.

And I think that any plan that really divides neighborhoods would really cause, you know, a dilemma for us here in the city.

So, please, try the best you can to work within the communities, the neighborhoods in terms of the redistricting for the State Representative Districts. Keep the neighborhoods and those community entities intact, if you will.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you. If you have any issues or questions that you'd like to ask of myself, I'd be glad to answer any questions.

REP. LYONS: Senator Sullivan.

SEN. SULLIVAN: Not so much a question, just to clarify one thing. I think you said at the outset that you had heard that there were plans around that we're looking at to be shared. I want to assure you that nothing at this point could be further from the truth. There are no draft plans. There will be no draft plans.

The purpose of this hearing and the hearings we have is to get information to us, not information from us. We are trying to listen, as you suggested tonight, to the sort of criteria that people in the state think we should look at within the confines of the Constitution, which is ultimately the criterion we live with.

But we have not engaged in nor do we have available nor have we looked at one single redistricting plan at this point in time.

LARRY BUTLER: Okay. Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.

Alderman Butler, I appreciate your comments. Obviously, you care a great deal about your city and about the 5th District. But can you just clarify for me exactly what specifics make Danbury and Waterbury so similar that they need to be together? I don't necessarily disagree with you. But you mentioned that time and time again, that Danbury and Waterbury are so similar. Can you explain to me what the similarities in the year 2001?

LARRY BUTLER: Well, right now the similarities are probably -- basically more of -- probably -- Danbury is more like three-quarters the size of Waterbury. But it has its basic neighborhood settings where there's certain parts of town that actually have community settings, if you will, that you know, that probably need to be taken under consideration, as well as Waterbury, and probably a big part of what makes Danbury, you know, special as well.

I think that Waterbury is going through a transition financially in terms of going from a manufacturing base and trying to really re-establish itself, whereas Danbury has more or less been successful in attracting a lot of businesses from the New York area. And, really, you know, economically they're kind of booming. And we hope to use some of that economic development as a solution to our problem here in Waterbury.

So in terms of being associated with them, we can very much learn from the economic development and being here at a crossroads of I-84 and Route 8, hopefully we could use some of their plan and market ourselves very much the way they have. They have a geographic location that's probably favorable.

But I see in terms of the transition from manufacturing to the economic development they did to draw businesses, you know, is what I'm looking at more than anything else.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: And for many years now, Danbury and Waterbury have been in the same District. How -- from what you're saying, to draw from Danbury's successes, how would being in the same District affect that? Whereas -- I mean you could still draw, my guess is, from their experiences of what's happened in Danbury.

I'm trying to get a feel, I guess, for what would make Danbury and Waterbury linked up so closely as opposed to a Danbury/Norwalk or Stamford or Danbury and Torrington, because there are so many different options out there right now. Can you explain what makes those two linked up so closely?

LARRY BUTLER: Well, our current Congressman happens to be from Danbury and has his main headquarters here in Waterbury. But I think that having someone who knows both cities so well very much helps.

I'm sure you could look at a lot of different combinations of cities and come up with a lot of different plans. But I just think that the current configuration just happens to work. Geographically, we're in the center. We have a bow tie type of district, where in the west we have Danbury anchoring down the west end; Meriden, we have another city that actually anchors the east.

And I just think that some configuration that main-- to really maintain that or tweak it such to, you know, to maybe expand the current District would help versus -- I don't know how the state is being looked at to be carved up. But if -- if -- if we were to lose one District and just reapportion various Districts, I think that works more for me an our District currently because I happen to be very fond of my District and my fellow cities and towns within my District. If we were to adopt some other towns to make us fit the population criteria, that would make me very happy.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: I appreciate your answers. I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm trying to -- because, obviously, one district I don't see will disappear. But we're losing one district. So we're going to have to change the entire structure of the state, the configuration of the state. And everyone is going to say "Please keep my District intact." So I'm just trying to get your -- I'm just trying to get your feel, besides the incumbent Congressman who sits here, for what kept Danbury and Waterbury together. And I do appreciate your comments.

LARRY BUTLER: All right.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.

LARRY BUTLER: You're welcome.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Good evening.

REP. LYONS: Good evening.

REP. WALLACE: Madam Speaker, Senator Pro Tempore Sullivan, members of the Committee, I want to start by thanking the Committee for holding these statewide hearings. I had the opportunity to participate in redistricting hearings ten years ago. And I remember having to trek to Hartford repeatedly. And so I appreciate the Committee coming out to the state and holding these public hearings to encourage participation from around the state.

I also know as I stand here this evening that many of my colleagues, probably as well as a number of lobbyists, would welcome the opportunity to be before the eight of you and speak on a number of issues. But here tonight I'm going to talk about redistricting.

And what I'm going to speak about addresses some, I believe, of Senator Cappiello's questions. And I want to speak about the communities of interest, of Danbury, of Waterbury and Meriden.

Christians believe in a Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost. I believe in the 5th District we have a trinity that we want to keep whole and that trinity is Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden.

Speaking to the District, there are -- I'm going to talk about the District. I'm also going to talk about the communities of interest that I most prominently represent and those are people of color.

The 5th Congress-- the current 5th Congressional District has the fourth-largest population of African-Americans housed and living primarily in Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden. It has the third-largest population of Hispanics living primarily at Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden.

As legislators and skilled politicians, in the best sense of the word, you know about communities of interest. We have our own communities of interest in the legislature. It may be the Organization of Women Legislators. It may be the Italian/American Caucus. It may be the Irish/American Caucus. It may be the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus. Communities of interest meeting not always for a political or policy opportunity but an opportunity to socialize, to gather strength from each other. These are the type of communities of interest that, again, Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden share.

I remember a few years back in the legislature, in the House, there was a row of Representatives seated near -- seated in the back row of the House. And they proudly wore or they proudly had at their seats flags. They had an Italian flag and an American flag. And they had that because they were proud of their ancestry, I believe, not being Italian. But I'm sure they were proud of their ancestry and, as well, they're proud of being Americans. A community of interest; the same as Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden.

Throughout the 5th District, but especially, again, the black and Hispanic communities in Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden, share a community of interest -- and I'm going to just speak briefly and, I believe, with some insight -- not some insight, but as an example. And I can also speak to Senator Cappiello, who will be getting married next year; I believe met his wife at the State Capitol, the legislature, as I met my wife in the halls of the State Capitol. At that time, she was living in Meriden. When we got married, we got married at her family church in Waterbury. And I, of course, am a resident of Danbury.

People of color, Hispanic people, we attend many of the same -- the churches that we attend are well-known to ourselves. In Danbury specifically, we have a large population of younger people moving to Waterbury because the housing prices are lower and, yet, their parents and many relatives still live in Danbury. Communities of interest.

As you deliberate over what you hear today and what you've heard in the past and what you will hear in the future and as you prepare a map to present to your colleagues, I ask that -- I ask respectfully that you do consider the communities of interest, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Latinos, here in the 5th District that reside, again, primarily in the cities of Waterbury, Danbury and Meriden.

Thank you very much.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir, very much for your comments.

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO: Thank you.

Just a brief comment, Representative Wallace. Just so you know, you referred to Christine as my wife. And we can't really push it. Julia Washington might be upset she wasn't invited to the wedding as of yet. So she's still fiancee.

REP. WALLACE: Wife to be. And a good choice.

REP. LYONS: Representative Ward has a question.

REP. WARD: Good evening, Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Good evening.

REP. WARD: Other than very interestingly with your own personal family situation -- let me first say I grew up in the Lower Naugatuck Valley, lived in Derby from when I was about four years old until I finished college and got married. So I know something about the Valley.

Would it really be fair to say that the average constituent of yours from Danbury doesn't spend much time in Meriden and, other than the happenstance of the same Congressman, you don't see a lot of Meriden folks shopping or doing business in Danbury? I mean aren't those two towns really pretty distinct?

REP. WALLACE: I think there's probably more connection between Waterbury and Meriden and Meriden -- I'm sorry -- and Waterbury and Danbury. But, again, Representative Ward, the communities of interest that I speak to you tonight about are African-Americans and Hispanics. And, again, our churches are primarily in the major cities. The issues that we care about deeply, they're issues that every Connecticut citizen cares deeply about. Our issues, of course, come with brown and black faces. And so that's a very important consideration. Whether they shop or visit in Waterbury of Danbury, the issues that we care about are broader than that.

REP. WARD: I think that's very fair. And I've made no preconceived notions and any one person wouldn't make a decision anyway. But one of the things I've toyed with is whether two of the largest cities ought to be -- in other words, should New Haven be with Meriden and Waterbury? So that, in fact, you would have very substantially the largest minority group. And especially if you could fit into that and still make it fit within, you would then be linking minority communities in a greater way. Is that something you think we should be looking at?

REP. WALLACE: Certainly, you'll have -- you will have many options to consider. Tonight I want to speak about the current 5th District and the cities that are in those and the people that I know best. And, again, that's Danbury, Waterbury and Meriden.

REP. WARD: Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Representative Wallace.

The next speaker is Chris Setaro. And as you come forward, if you might just either identify yourself as representing yourself or some community or the community from which you currently reside? Thank you, sir.

CHRIS SETARO: Thank you. Madam Speaker, Senator DeLuca, my name is Chris Setaro. And I am the former Common Council President in the City of Danbury. I'm representing myself this evening.

I'd like to first say that I am not married and I have not met a girlfriend or fiancee in the 5th Congressional District. And I hope that does not impact on the weight given to my comments tonight.

And I'd also like to certainly greet our hometown Senator, David Cappiello, who sits on your Committee.

Good evening. My name is Chris Setaro and I live in the city of Danbury. And I'm the former President of the Danbury City Council. I'm here this evening to discuss why I believe the Redistricting Committee should uphold nearly 40 years of history and keep Danbury and Waterbury in the same Congressional District.

Ever since April of 1964 when the General Assembly met in a Special Session and eliminated the Representative-at-large and created six Congressional Districts, carving out what was then the new 6th District, Danbury and Waterbury have been located together in the 6th Congressional District.

The 5th was not created as an afterthought. According to the 1972 edition of the Almanac of American Politics, that belongs -- that distinction belongs to the 6th District. And I quote, "Connecticut's 6th is one of those Districts that consists of everything left over after everyone has been constructed."

It came as no surprise then that the 6th District was intended for and was subsequently held by the last member of Congress at large, Bernard Grabowski of Bristol.

But there was something more concrete than 37 years of history that connects Waterbury and Danbury. It is the link of I-4 and the economic and community connections between Waterbury and Danbury that it represents.

The 5th Congressional District is known as the I-84 corridor, for the interstate runs from the District's western border in Danbury, through Waterbury, in the east connecting through I-691 to Meriden. Many new businesses are located along its course and most were started after I-84 was created.

I-84 is the east/west spine for a series of State roads, like Routes 7 and 8, that run north and south to the smaller towns in the District.

The communities of the 5th Congressional District, like Danbury and Waterbury, are connected and possess a shared identity because of I-84.

I'm sure there's been much discussion about the size and shape of our current Congressional Districts and that compactness, as well as economic ties, is important to consider. The current 5th District from Danbury to Meriden is only 42 miles long. The 4th Congressional District, a very compact District, is only two miles shorter than the 5th. It takes 40 miles to travel from Monroe to Greenwich. Indeed, the 5th Congressional District is much smaller than either the 6th or the sprawling 2nd. Yet, it has the largest population today of any Congressional District in the state.

The economies of the city of Waterbury and Danbury are linked in other important ways. The city of Danbury has been growing rapidly, including major expansion in high-tech manufacturing. The city of Waterbury, with its centuries-old manufacturing heritage, supplies a significant component of that workforce.

Conversely, many people commute from Danbury to Waterbury to work or have access to major Waterbury institutions, such as Naugatuck Valley Community College, the Waterbury UConn campus and St. Mary's and Waterbury Hospitals.

The affordability of the Waterbury housing market has provided a benefit to the communities of western Connecticut where development pressures have been acute.

Because Danbury and Waterbury are both in the same Congressional District, the two communities can maximize their abilities to work together and derive the most from their interlinked economies. For example, I-84 throughout the 5th Congressional District, from east of Waterbury to the New York border and Danbury, is currently slated for major improvements and upgrades. This both reflects the connection of the two cities and highlights the need to keep both of the cities together in one Congressional District so those improvements can be best coordinated and advanced.

It is notable that far more vehicular traffic connects Danbury to Waterbury along I-84 than connects Danbury along Route 7 to the southern Fairfield cities of Bridgeport, Norwalk and Stamford combined. Because I-84 is so central to this region's economic and community life, splitting Danbury from Waterbury along I-84 would be just as damaging as splitting Stamford, Norwalk and Bridgeport along I-95.

Finally, the cities and their outlooks are similar. Both are cities with strong neighborhood traditions. Both are very diverse in their ethnic and racial populations. Danbury and Waterbury have among the two largest Portuguese/American communities in the state of Connecticut. Both Danbury and Waterbury are home to growing Hispanic communities and both cities are politically independent, supporting Republicans and Democrats alike, in distinction with many larger cities that vote Democratic and smaller towns that vote exclusively Republican.

Both need, furthermore, continue energetic representation to ensure they are provided the grants and funds needed to continue their revitalization efforts. Twenty-five miles of pavement, thirty-seven years of history and ever-stronger economic links connect Danbury and Waterbury.

And I respectfully request that the Redistricting Committee keep these two cities together in the 5th Congressional District.

Madam Speaker and members of the Committee, before I conclude, I did want to share with you an analogy that perhaps may shed some light on Senator Cappiello's point and Representative Ward's question with regard to the commonalities between Danbury and Waterbury.

When I -- I attended law school at Catholic University in the District of Columbia. And while I lived in the District of Columbia, a media outlet had conducted a poll amongst residents of the Greater District of Columbia area, asking them in Maryland and Virginia whether they felt that they were a part of the Greater District of Columbia metropolitan area. Those in the state of Maryland felt overwhelmingly that they were part of the Greater District of Columbia metropolitan area. Those in northern Virginia overwhelmingly felt that they were not part of the Greater D.C. area, although they were all substantially within several miles of the District of Columbia.

And the conclusion that was drawn from that was that those folks that lived in Maryland did not have to travel over a bridge. There was not a body of water that separated them. And that they were connected to the District of Columbia more closely. Those that lived in northern Virginia felt that the fact that they traveled over a bridge, the fact that there was a body of water that separated them, was, in fact, a distinct difference.

And I reflected upon that as I heard the questions of the Committee because one of the questions perhaps that will continue with this Committee is why would Danbury be more greatly connected to Waterbury than southward along Route 7. Why would Route 7 be any less a connecting factor than I-84?

And I use this analogy to highlight that; that, in fact, the people of Danbury do see, in my view, in my experience -- and I'm speaking for myself -- a difference between Route 7 south and I-84; that there are common interests and there are certain not so much understandings but there are -- there is a view, I believe, that Danbury does look towards Waterbury rather than southern Fairfield County.

So I'm not sure that that's necessarily helpful in addressing some of the questions, that analogy. But I did feel that perhaps it could shed some light.

And I thank the Committee for your time and certainly would be willing to take any of your questions.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir, for being here. Appreciate it.

CHRIS SETARO: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you.

Mike Verona? Vernova. I'm sorry. No? Okay.

I would like to acknowledge we have been joined by Representative Giannaros and appreciate you're being here this evening.

Deborah Lewis?

DEBORAH LEWIS: Thank you. Welcome to the city of Waterbury --

REP. LYONS: Thank you.

DEBORAH LEWIS: -- the place of fiscal change. It is so nice to see all of you sitting right here where we all make it happen. Or maybe sometimes not make it happen.

I sit on the Board of Aldermen for the City of Waterbury. And I come to you to obviously appeal to you the way many of the previous speakers have done before, which is to basically ask you to keep the 5th District the same.

But I come from a perspective of having experienced the 5th District because I worked for former Congressman Gary Franks and had the opportunity to travel the 5th District. And that bow tie shape of the 5th District is manageable. Not only is it geographically manageable, but it is all the things that the previous speakers have said. It has a diverse population. But when I think of diversity, I think of the ability of Republicans and Democrats to be elected in the 5th District, unlike the 1st District and the 3rd District.

I'm not saying that we can't win as Republicans or -- but it's been a history of more of the same in those districts more often than in our District. And so we have the opportunity to have different perspectives because of the geographic makeup of -- and the demographic makeup of our District.

So I ask you to consider looking to the east and leave us alone. Okay?

I thank you. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I sure do know the 5th District from -- you know, from the top to the bottom, going down to Ridgefield, traveling 7, going up to Danbury, sitting in the Seymour Town Hall, making my presence known. So, you know, I certainly, if not at this time, at any time would be happy to provide you with input.

Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, Madam.

Representative Sullivan.

REP. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I understand the passion and the experience behind your remarks. I suspect that as we continue these hearings around the state of Connecticut, we will hear pleas to keep the 1st the 1st, keep the 2nd the 2nd, keep the 3rd the 3rd, keep the 4th the 4th, keep the 6th the 6th and keep the 5th the 5th.

There's only one small problem. First, we're going from six to five. That's a modest problem that we face. Second, the probability is that there is not -- the certainty is that there is no Congressional District in the state that will not in some fashion be reconfigured. So, at a minimum, there will be no District, I suspect, that will be the same.

DEBORAH LEWIS: Oh, good. I'm happy to know that there will be equal opportunity change. Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you very much for your remarks.

The next speaker is James Szynkiewicz.

JAMES SZYNKIEWICZ: Excuse me. My name is James Szynkiewicz. I reside here in the city of Waterbury. And my understanding was there was somebody ahead of me. So there was -- I don't know. Do we switch? Is this possible? Because this gentleman has to leave earlier.

REP. LYONS: Sure.

JAMES SZYNKIEWICZ: He's been concerned about it.

REP. LYONS: Yes. That's fine. Go ahead and switch. If you would please identify yourself, sir, the next gentleman who is taking your place.

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK: My name is Joe Zdonczyk. I'm the State Chairman of the oldest independent political party in the state of Connecticut. And the very first thing I want to do is I want to thank Jim Szynkiewicz for giving me his time. I do have an appointment at 9:00. And I genuinely appreciate him giving me this opportunity.

I would also like to note that right from the very beginning I looked around and there was a room full of people here and several people sitting up there at the podium and there was an American flag and a Connecticut flag. And ordinarily I would expect that every meeting would begin with, at the very least, a Pledge of Allegiance. And there was none. I think that's a major defect that should be corrected at future meetings.

I would like to just basically say God bless this nation and God bless this state. Over the years, the Concerned Citizens Party have run candidates, many candidates, on a local level, on a State level and on a Federal level. We have garnered anywhere from 500 votes for a local candidate to 35,000 votes for a candidate for United States Senate. In our last election, our candidate, Bill Kozack, who ran against Mr. Lieberman and our own Mr. Giordano here, for United States Senate received 26,000 votes. I, myself, ran as a candidate for the Congress against Mr. Maloney and Mr. Nielsen.

Why are we concerned about this districting? Well, of course, what this means, if districting, redistricting does take place, it means that the status that we enjoy by reason of hard work would just simply be wiped off the books. The only position that we will remain -- that we will maintain status for will be for United States Senate because is not affected by redistricting.

However, the 5th Congressional District, the 6th Congressional District and other Districts where we may have candidates who have run for State offices, they will be wiped clean. You know, I was reading here in this handout that was given. It said, "Federal law requires Districts to have about equal populations so that everyone's vote has equal importance." One person, one vote.

Well, we certainly feel that it's necessary that this be taken into consideration when you redistrict, however you do it, and that you preserve that concept of one person, one vote.

You know, right now this commission is composed of people, Republicans and Democrats. We'd like to point out to you what it said here in your own -- in your own handout. "Although the courts have not clearly identified the principals, they may include respecting communities of interest, drawing contiguous and reasonably contact districts, protecting incumbents and maintaining partisan fairness."

Well, you know, I would question that. When you talk about partisan fairness, this would indicate to me that you're talking about fairness for the Republican Party and for the Democratic Party. Now, about a third of the state of Connecticut is comprised of voters who are neither Republican or Democrat, who are Independent voters. You have the commission that's made up, comprised of eight people and another appointed person, purely partisan. Where is the representation for the Independent voters? There is none.

If you're talking about fairness, one man, one vote, where is the representation? Where are the best interests of those people who are Independent voters represented? This is going to shape up in the months to come as a purely partisan battle. Republicans will be jockeying around and gerrymandering and the Democrats doing the same thing, to gain political advantage. That's not what redistricting should be all about.

Redistricting is to provide fair and decent representation for all the people in the state of Connecticut honestly and fairly. With this kind of a commission sitting in place, that can't be done.

I would ask where we're concerned, our own Concerned Citizens Party, where we're concerned is that legislation be passed so that, at the very least, those positions that we have, that we have achieved through hard labor -- and you know what it takes to get a candidate on the ballot here in the state of Connecticut? We have had to collect as high as 13,000 certified signatures to get a candidate on the ballot for Governor. In this last presidential election, we had to get 7,500 signatures for an Independent candidate to run for President with our Concerned Citizens Party. That's a difficult task. It's very, very hard to achieve status. We've done that in the case of the 5th and 6th Congressional District. Also in the 35th State Senatorial District. We have status.

And when redistricting takes place, what happens to that status? Republicans and Democrats just simply wipe us out. Where is the justice? Where is the fairness?

You know, right here in Waterbury we had a similar problem that just came up. We're talking about fair representation of the people. You're probably not familiar with it. But there was an effort made here in the city of Waterbury to change the City's government and to allow representation by district. It was brought to a referendum and it was very, very closely defeated. What the people of the city of Waterbury were saying is there needs to be a change in government. There needs to be fairer representation.

And what you're doing on the State level is the same thing. You are taking and looking at this proposal in a purely partisan fashion. You're not taking into consideration the wishes and the desires of the people of the state of Connecticut who are not affiliated with the Republicans or Democratic parties.

So, insofar as we're concerned, our own Concerned Citizens Party, we would ask you to pass legislation that would preserve those positions for which we have status.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir. I believe Representative Ward had a comment or a question.

REP. WARD: I just wanted to, at least for the record, say first I appreciate your comments asking us to consider the status of minority parties when we look at redistricting.

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK: I'm sorry. I can't hear you very well. Could you speak louder please?

REP. WARD: I'm sorry. I said I appreciate your making a point of asking us to consider the status on minority parties when doing redistricting. It's not something I had thought of.

But I did want to also point out that you indicate that the Committee is not make up of any unaffiliated minority party members. I wanted the record to reflect the Constitution requires that the Committee be made up of legislators. And there are no legislators presently serving who are either unaffiliated or members of minority parties. So that it would not be possible -- and the Constitution isn't something the General Assembly did, but, obviously, was adopted by Amendment of all of the people. So I just wanted you to understand that it would not have been possible to appoint minority party or unaffiliated to this commission because our State Constitution requires it be made up by members of the General Assembly.

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK: May I ask you a question? There was a point here made that there was one person who was supposed to be nominated, other than the eight members that were originally serving. Was that person a legislator also?

REP. WARD: Only if the eight-member committee does not reach by the September 15 deadline a plan which gets submitted to the General Assembly. Only then would there be a ninth person. And I do not recall off the top of my head -- I don't believe that that person has to be from either party and that person does not have to be a legislator.

JOSEPH ZDONCZYK: If it is within constitutional guidelines and if it does come to an impasse and if then it does become possible that we have another person appointed to the Board, that that person be an Independent person.

REP. WARD: Thank you.

REP. LYONS: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your comments.

The next speaker is Dennis Buckley.

DENNIS BUCKLEY: Honorable Chairpersons and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Dennis M. Buckley and I reside at 1062 Meriden Road in the city of Waterbury. I have been a registered Republican voter in this city for 35 years. And I have engaged in some politics during the course of that period. And, as a consequence, I have participated in the election of persons to the General Assembly of Connecticut, the Congress of the United States, the office of Mayor of Waterbury and, yes, the governorship of the State of Connecticut.

I would say that as a result I have been afforded an opportunity to see our political process from a vantage point of the inside.

I have also in the course of the last decade, while serving as incorporator and President of Concerned Taxpayers of Waterbury, Incorporated, our local taxpayer organization, been subjected to observing and protesting the ill effects of insider politics in the city of Waterbury; a process, which, in my opinion, has neither acknowledged nor addressed the concerns or needs of the residents and voters of this city.

This evening, I have appeared before you to express my concerns regarding whether redistricting will adequately meet the needs and desires of the voters of the city of Waterbury, as well as the voters of the ballots of the 5th Congressional District and, yes, the voters of the 6th Congressional District.

I respectfully argue to this Committee that a top priority of your charge must be the preservation and expansion of the current 5th and 6th Congressional Districts, ably represented by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson and Congressman Jim Maloney.

I understand that this Committee must determine geographic lines for five new Congressional Districts which incorporate approximately 125,000 new persons into these districts beyond the present populations now identified.

Given the fact that the present 5th Congressional District is the largest in this state, this Committee need only add approximately 100,000 individuals in order to reach the magic number of 681,113 desired in each of the new configured districts.

I submit to you that finding those additional individuals should not be difficult. When you examine the 2000 census, you will determine that this portion of Connecticut, that is, western Connecticut, Fairfield, Litchfield and New Haven Counties, experienced the most growth during the last decade, while, in comparison, the eastern portion of our state, New London County, was the slowest-growing region in the state of Connecticut.

Clearly, this Committee can both preserve and expand the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts. Sufficient numbers are right here. No doubt, the more important question is why should your Committee produce this result?

We understand that any Congressional District is more than lines drawn onto the map of the state. The real significance regarding any Congressional District is the capacity of and commitment to representation provided by the individual sent by the people of that district to the United States Congress in Washington.

We could have a substantial discussion regarding the overall effectiveness of the seniority system in the United States Congress some day. But this is not that day.

The seniority system and its importance in the institution of the U.S. Congress, I would argue to you, is a fact. That system and its weight in the daily functions of the Congress, I respectfully submit to you, impel your action to preserve and protect the 5th and 6th Congressional Districts.

Representative Nancy Johnson and fellow Republican representing the 6th Congressional District is one of the members of the prestigious and powerful Ways and Means Committee. Additionally, she chairs the Health Care Sub-Committee in the U.S. Congress.

For Connecticut and some of the state's largest employers, such as Aetna and Cigna, having Representative Johnson on those committees are invaluable assets of the competition to create and/or maintain thousands of jobs.

For the state's senior citizens or other individuals interested in the complex issues of an ever-changing health care delivery industry, Representative Johnson is at ground zero in her chairmanship position, both informed on the issues and capable of sponsoring and leading toward passage necessary legislation in the interests of the people of our whole state.

Congressman Jim Maloney, my Congressman in the 5th District, is now in his third term and is the State's most senior member on both the Armed Services and Financial Services Committees. Each of these committees has proven crucial to fueling Connecticut's business and industrial economy, yesterday, today and, no doubt, tomorrow.

The Armed Services Committee often works closely with such notable Connecticut employers as Sikorsky and UTC. The Financial Services Committee has recently inherited from the Commerce Committee the role of overseeing and working with the insurance industry, one of the service industries for which Connecticut is perhaps best known nationwide. Such committee, in terms of banking and security issues, affords Congressman Maloney opportunities to assist Webster Bank, which is headquartered here in Waterbury.

Lastly, Congressman Maloney has compiled a record of local service to the people of the 5th District, such that even his opponent in the last election observed that he performs like the mayor of the 5th District, addressing issues judged by many to usually be the responsibility of local elected officials.

For example, last year, in the beginning stages of the eventual disclosure of Waterbury's fiscal crisis, when local officials proposed raising sewer use rates nearly 300 percent, sponsoring pleas from my constituents and concerned taxpayers and Waterbury rate payers in general for assistance, Jim Maloney secured emergency funding by passage of a Congressional enactment granting the City of Waterbury $750,000.00 to be applied toward rate relief.

In conclusion, I would stress to the Committee that we need to keep experienced and influential members like Congressman Johnson and Congressman Maloney in place both in terms of preserving their Districts as well as preserving the opportunities of their service to Connecticut's residents.

It is unfortunate, but unavoidable, that Connecticut must lose a Congressional seat. But it is wholly avoidable that such loss should deprive either the 5th or the 6th District of the presence and powers of these two persons in the Congress of the United States.

I've read articles in the Waterbury Republican American speculating as to whether the Districts would be merged in such a manner as would sponsor a race for a new Congressional seat between Representatives Johnson and Maloney. I respectfully submit that such outcome from this Committee's deliberations would be a profound disservice to this region of the state which has grown the most in the decade since the last Federal census.