Category: Fall 2002 Newswire
Shays Forced to Defend U.S. Policy Towards Israel
By Andrew Kosow
WASHINGTON, Oct. 07, 2002–A combative Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays (R – 4th) chaired a subcommittee hearing Tuesday that was designed to discuss how America can better communicate with the Arab world but degenerated into a contentious debate about U.S. policy towards Israel.
“Arabs love American culture but deplore American policy in the Middle East, particularly with regard to Israel,” said witness John Zogby, a well-known pollster who is president and CEO of Zogby International. He cited a poll that showed young Arabs in the Middle East generally like all aspects of American life and values but, like their elders, abhor U.S. policy.
“If it is just policy then I think the differences are unbridgeable,” said Shays. “We are not changing our policy towards Israel.” He went on to say that after Sept. 11 he feels more sympathetic to the Israeli side and that terrorism will only make the American government do the opposite of what the terrorists are hoping to accomplish.
The hearing entitled, “Are We Listening To The Arab Street?” was before the Government Reform subcommittee on national security, veterans affairs and international relations – and consisted of three separate panels of experts.
The rhetoric and acrimony became particularly harsh during the testimony of the second panel of five experts, four of whom held pro-Palestinian views.
“There is an asymmetry of compassion and pressure,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. “No compassion for Palestinians and no pressure on the Israelis.” He said that because of this bias, “when President Bush professes to care about the Iraqi people [in his speech Monday night] it does not ring true.”
Shays said that the U.S. government would not publicly engage in dialogue with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or the Palestinian Authority because it believes he uses terrorism. “Until terrorism stops, how can we negotiate?” said Shays.
“U.S. policy was always to negotiate in the past,” said soft-spoken panelist Dr. R.S. Zaharna, an assistant professor of public communication at American University.
“That was a mistake,” shot back Shays. “Because that says that if you do violent acts then we would negotiate.”
Earlier during the hearing, Shays said he was embarrassed by what he considered the lack of American response after the terrorist bombings of the U.S.S Cole in Yemen and Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and added sarcastically that the terrorists were probably worried that maybe “we were gonna sue them.”
In later testimony James Zogby tried to reiterate criticisms of Israel that he had mentioned earlier, but was cut off by Shays, who asked Zogby not to repeat himself to make his points.
“Repetition can be the mother of learning,” an exasperated Zogby said. “But I see I have failed today.”
Zaharna did try to soften the debate by thanking Shays for attempting to understand differing opinions. She said that the reason there is such vitriol is that Arabs have such high expectations of America: “There is still a love of the American people and their values which makes the pain double.”
In the third panel, the Washington bureau chief for the Arab satellite news channel Al-Jazeera, Hafez Al-Mirazi, answered critics of his organization who say it exacerbates anger in the Arab world by showing provocative images of Palestinian suffering. “We give airtime to Israeli casualties but there are more Palestinian victims.” Al-Jazeera is the only non-government controlled television station in the Arab world.
Shays said he had a better feeling about Al-Jazeera after the testimony, and added that he was delighted they attempted to address difficult issues. But, he said, he would be “horrified if people thought I was complimenting the programming.”
Shays said after the hearing that he was shocked to learn that the Zogby poll, conducted earlier this year, said young Arabs have a more positive view of America than older generations. “It is something we can build on and gives me hope.”
He also said the hearing produced an informative debate but that he was not persuaded by the witnesses’ arguments to change American policy.
“If Israel disappeared tomorrow, we would still have these problems,” Shays said.
Among the other witnesses Tuesday were Ambassador Chris Ross from the U.S. Department of State and Yigal Carmon, the president of the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Published in The Hour, in Connecticut.
Group Highlights Diesel Danger
By Riley Yates
WASHINGTON, Oct. 03, 2002--One in 3,250 New Hampshire residents may get cancer because of outdoor air pollution, with most of that risk produced by diesel soot in the air, according to a study released Thursday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer rights watchdog.
That puts New Hampshire well below the national average of one in 2,100.and puts it 28th among the 49 states (excluding Alaska) covered in the survey of potential cancer risk from air pollution.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 established the margin of safety for cancer risk from carcinogens at one in 1 million, said the study, which used Environmental Protection Agency data. The New Hampshire rate is 308 times higher than that standard.
The study blamed diesel emissions for much of the outdoor air pollution. In New Hampshire, the study said, diesel soot produces 88 percent of the carcinogens in the air.
More than half of diesel soot pollution comes from construction, industrial and farm vehicles that do not use the roads, the study said.
Emissions standards for those vehicles are much more lax than the standards for other vehicles, Emily Figdore, the clean air advocate for U.S. PIRG, said at a press conference Thursday.
The EPA in 2001 required that diesel fuel emissions for trucks and buses be reduced by 90 percent by 2010, Figdore said. They should ask the same of non-road diesel vehicles, she said.
"We see a great urgency to cleaning up these engines," Figdore said.
Josh Irwin, the director of the New Hampshire PIRG, agreed, and said he hoped the Bush administration would maintain the EPA's 2010 deadline for reducing truck and bus emissions.
Irwin suggested that New Hampshire work on its own to adopt more rigorous clean vehicle standards similar to those in place in most other New England states.
He said the current emissions standards in New Hampshire are "locked in place" until 2007. But, he added, "if we're going to move to that tougher standard, we're going to have to start working on it now."
He said that given New Hampshire's location and size, though, federal regulations are required, since much of New Hampshire's pollution is blown in from other states. Weather patterns, he said, circulate pollution into the state from as far away as Ohio.
Allen Schaeffer, the executive director of Diesel Technology Forum-- which represents oil and natural gas companies such as British Petroleum, as well as engine manufacturers-- took issue with the report's focus.
"The industry has made very significant progress" toward reducing emissions, Schaeffer said. Engines today, he said, pollute much less than those built even a dozen years ago.
He said he thought the lower standards for non-road vehicles reflected that they are used for heavy-duty work.
"The average person in Manchester would recognize the difference in a bulldozer and a delivery truck," he said.
Gary Abbott, the executive vice president of the Bow-based Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire, highlighted the small number of construction vehicles compared to cars.
When deciding admissions standards, Abbott said, it must be borne in mind that "there's only one bulldozer for X number of automobiles."
Abbott said he would be concerned that new standards might lead to companies "putting useful equipment to rest."
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
N.H. Delegation Supports Bush Resolution; Maine Not Committed
WASHINGTON, Oct. 03--New Hampshire lawmakers in the House and Senate openly support a resolution to give President Bush authority to use force against Iraq, while the Maine delegation may not be far behind.
Spokesmen for Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins said Thursday afternoon the senators think the administration's latest compromise resolution is "a step in the right direction" but stopped short of saying they would vote to support it.
Collins "did think the latest bipartisan resolution proposed by the administration is a considerable improvement over previous resolutions," her spokesman Joe Palmieri, said. "But she's still reviewing the language of the most current resolution and looking at any alternatives."
The administration and some congressional leaders reached agreement on a compromise resolution Wednesday that would authorize the president "to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to…enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Reps. John Sununu and Charlie Bass, R-N.H., have endorsed Wednesday's proposal, along with a majority of House Republicans. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., recently joined the GOP in supporting the plan, all but ensuring that the measure would have enough Democratic support to pass the House next week, when it's expected to come to the floor.
Both of New Hampshire's Republican senators also support the resolution, but the Democratic leadership in the Senate has not committed to it. Instead, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said the Senate would be likely to vote on three versions of a resolution to use force against Iraq. The votes could come late next week.
Sen. Judd Gregg was critical of Daschle's reluctance to support Wednesday's compromise plan. "Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership of the Senate under Sen. Daschle has decided to be reticent in this area," said Gregg in a statement. "And I think that is a mistake."
Spokesmen for Snowe and Collins said the senators are continuing to speak with Democrats and Republicans about possible alternatives to Wednesday's resolution but thy wouldn't make their positions known until the issue comes to the floor next week.
"It's too early to say where she is," Snowe spokesman Dave Lackey said. "Sen. Snowe is reviewing the resolution, and she will announce her decision when debate starts on the floor."
A spokesman for Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, said the congressman also was undecided. "He's carefully examining the resolution, but he hasn't made up his mind," Allen spokesman Mark Sullivan said. "But he still feels we should exhaust all of our options in terms of diplomacy and working with our allies before taking any military action against Iraq."
Some Senate Democrats have criticized Wednesday's plan as being too broad, while most Republicans say it is an adequate compromise. The resolution encourages the president to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council" but does not require U.N. approval. The president would be required to report to Congress within 48 hours of launching any military action to explain why diplomatic means were no longer sufficient to avoid war. He would also have to report to Congress every 60 days while military action continues.
Bass said that such congressional oversight and encouragement to work with the United Nations is a good thing. "I am confident that the president will be successful in his efforts to build support from the United Nations," he said in a statement. "Nevertheless, if the president decides he needs to act to protect Americans he has the authority under this resolution to do so."
Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., said Congress must support the president. "The president deserves our support in whatever mission he needs to conduct in Iraq to protect Americans and preserve our national security," he said in a statement.
Gregg agreed. "I do think it is important that we speak with one voice and [that] we lead the world," he said. "The president has shown leadership here, and we should support him on it."
No one would venture a guess as to when the issue might be resolved, though Bush has said he wants a resolution passed before the November election.
"We could be on this for all of October or we could be done next week," Lackey said. "We'll see."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Diesel Soot Puts N.H. Residents at Cancer Risk
By Tia Carioli and Gregory Chisholm
WASHINGTON, Oct. 03, 2002--New Hampshire residents may be at a higher risk for cancer says a new study out of Washington. NHPR Correspondent Gregory Chisholm reports.
Over three hundred people in New Hampshire may be at a higher cancer risk because of diesel soot according to a report released Thursday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
According to the report, every county in New Hampshire has unhealthy levels of air toxins, caused in part by diesel engines such as bulldozers, portable generators, and tractors.
Josh Irwin is director of the New Hampshire branch of PIRG.
That's pretty shocking - rural remote Coos County, the air there, because these pollutants are so harmful, is still above the level the EPA considers acceptable.
The report calls for tougher standards on diesel construction and farm equipment Alan Shaeffer of the Industry' s Diesel Technology Forum, called the reported risks theoretical.
And he added that diesel engines are 8 times cleaner than 12 years ago and he claims the industry continues to make progress ireducing pollutants further.
For NHPR News this is Greg Chisolm in Washington.
Broadcast on New Hampshire Public Radio, in New Hampshire.
Gwadosky Discusses Election Reform in D.C.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2002--Maine Secretary of State Dan Gwadosky met with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft today on behalf of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) to discuss ways to head off a possible repeat of what happened in Florida two years ago. He also went to Capitol Hill to urge Congress to move forward with legislation that would help pay for election reform.
Gwadosky, who serves as president of NASS, said the Ashcroft meeting was intended to facilitate conversation and begin a relationship between the Justice Department and NASS. Together, he said, the department and the association may be able, in advance of the next month's elections, to address issues such as voters' rights and the potential for election fraud on Election Day. "We think if there are issues with voter fraud then it ought to be handled expeditiously and as quickly as possible so that there's a strong deterrent for others who might be contemplating such a thing," Gwadosky said. (Ashcroft's office was unavailable for comment).
Gwadosky told the attorney general that another Florida situation could be likely, "just because a lot of states have been waiting for Congress to act on the national election."
Gwadosky spent the morning on the Hill working with members of Congress who are on the conference committee that is trying to reconcile differences between the Senate and the House over election reform legislation. He offered to provide assistance and urged them to act on the bill.
He said Maine has advantages that help contribute to some of the highest voting turnouts in the nation, such as absentee voting for any reason, provisional ballots for those whose right to vote are challenged, Election Day registration and central election authority.
"In the case of a recount, it's not like Florida," Gwadosky said, "where each county does their own thing; we pool the ballots into Augusta, and we have central authority to recount them."
According to Gwadosky, Maine is one of 12 states waiting for federal funds to improve their electoral machinery. The congressional conference committee has before it a bill that would give Maine up to $11 million to implement a central voter registration system and purchase optical scanning voting machines.
He noted that 28 states will still be using the kinds of punch card voting machines next month that were used in Florida two years ago. Most states have upgraded their machines or adopted legislation to install advanced systems, but nearly every state is in need of federal financial help.
"We have 42 states that are in deficits right now," he said, "and they're counting on a one-time opportunity from the federal government to make this investment."
Published in The Bangor Daily News, in Maine.
Conn. Congressmen Bring Iraq Resolution, Evidence to Forefront
By Marty Toohey
WASHINGTON, Oct. 02, 2002--Talk of war escalated in Connecticut's congressional delegation on Wednesday, with Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman introducing a resolution on action against Iraq and Republican Rep. Chris Shays outlining evidence against the Middle Eastern country.
Lieberman's resolution is identical to one President Bush and House leadership agreed to earlier in the day. The senator predicted it would pass his chamber after about a week of formal debate, which will probably begin today (Thursday).
The resolution is close to what the White House sought. It grants Bush broad military power against Iraq but requires the president to exhaust all options before taking action, to notify Congress within 48 hours of a U.S. attack and to report to Congress on all matters related to Iraq every 60 days.
The resolution, co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.), also reaffirms the administration's policy of regime change in Iraq.
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) lent cautious support to the bill, saying it would adequately limit the use of force and the need for international support.
In a Wednesday afternoon press conference, Shays (R-4), who chairs the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, outlined evidence against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and advocated military action against Iraq if it doesn't grant U.N. weapons inspectors unlimited access.
Shays said those contacting his office have been about 40-1 against pre-emptive action, but 34 committee hearings have persuaded him that Iraq presents an immediate threat. He said there's a "definite" connection between Hussein and terrorists, and the 70 families in his district who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks heavily influence his views.
"It's difficult for Americans to think of pre-emption, but that's the necessary strategy," Shays said. "You don't just sit back and wait for the mushroom cloud."
Lieberman, an outspoken proponent since 1991 of ousting Saddam Hussein, said the United States should build an international coalition before taking action against Iraq, but he also was blunt about how the United States should proceed.
"If we show our willingness to lead, we will not go it alone," he said.
Shays criticized the White House for not declassifying more information, but laid out a thorough description of Iraq's weapons capabilities, saying that it already possesses biological and chemical weapons and could develop nuclear ones within six months of obtaining enriched uranium and plutonium.
All Hussein would need is a softball-size quantity of the radioactive substances to create an atomic bomb, and it would be possible for Hussein to smuggle a few bombs into U.S. cities and "blackmail" the country, Shays said.
He also said there are the equivalent of about 250 "softballs" around the world in hundreds of locations.
"There are antidotes … to chemical and biological weapons," Shays said. "There is no antidote to a nuclear explosion."
Lieberman, who has criticized Republicans for politicizing the homeland security debate before the election, said he thinks legislation establishing the department will pass the Senate soon after debate on the Iraq resolution concludes.
He also said the U.S. military could successfully conduct anti-terrorism actions while engaging Iraq.
"These are two serious threats, and they are interconnected," Lieberman said.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
Area Senators Say Homeland Security Bill Unlikely
WASHINGTON, Oct. 02--Echoing the concerns of Senate leaders, area senators say passage of a homeland security bill before the November elections is less likely as each day passes
.
The Senate has been debating the bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security for more than four weeks, but has recently been stuck in a virtual stalemate over an amendment on union protections for federal workers.
Area senators said the bill might be set aside soon so the Senate can focus on other issues, including a resolution to use force against Iraq and the passage of a federal budget.
"The likelihood of the Senate passing Department of Homeland Security legislation looks dim, given the Iraq resolution debate that will take place and the appropriations bill that must be passed before Oct. 11," Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., said in an e-mail interview.
The Senate traditionally adjourns in early October in election years to allow candidates to campaign. Senate leaders have indicated Oct. 11 would be the adjournment date, leaving just over a week to pass a budget and debate the Iraq resolution.
"It's too early to write the obituary for the homeland security bill now," said Dave Lackey, spokesman for Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. But he acknowledged that passage of such a bill before the November elections is unlikely in light of the current gridlock.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, expressed similar thoughts. "The outlook right now looks like we won't get anything until after the election," Collins spokeswoman Felicia Knight said. "But I think there's always hope for progress as long as people continue to talk."
A spokesman for Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., didn't return repeated phone calls.
The proposed Department of Homeland Security would represent the largest restructuring of a government department in more than 50 years, with an estimated 170,000 employees and a $40 billion budget.
Smith said delaying the creation of the new department would be a mistake. "Any delay in passing legislation…is harmful since it will prevent the U.S. government from organizing and implementing the necessary infrastructure and policies to prevent further acts of terrorism," Smith said.
While none of the politicians wanted to cast blame, Knight said such gridlock often accompanies election-year congressional sessions. "That is an unfortunate byproduct of an election year, especially in such a closely divided Senate," she said.
The Senate is divided over a provision that would restrict President Bush's ability to remove union protections for federal employees. Senate Republicans say such flexibility is vital if the president is to adequately defend national security.
Lackey said Snowe, a moderate Republican, is frustrated that the two sides can't find a compromise. "This is an issue that senators should have been able to work out," he said. "They're looking for a bridge that would allow the president to maintain his authority while protecting workers' rights. That's been an elusive search."
The Maine senators expressed a desire to work beyond the likely Oct. 11 adjournment date if necessary to take care of unfinished business.
"The Senate has an obligation to finish its work even if that means staying in session until Election Day," Snowe's spokesman Lackey said. "The fact is time is running short. Senator Snowe believes they should be staying in nights and weekends until this gets done."
Collins's spokeswoman Knight agreed. "She's always wiling to stay and do the job."
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said a decision to extend the Oct. 11 deadline or to work extended hours is still up in the air. "It's possible, but nothing has been agreed to," Daschle spokesman Ranit Schmelzer said.
Though Lackey said things don't look good now, he retains hope that this Congress will pass a homeland security bill. "Nothing's over 'til it's over," he said.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Mass. Schools get a D- for Affordability
WASHINGTON, Oct. 02, 2002--Students in Massachusetts are paying more to attend public and private colleges in the state than students in most other states, according to a U.S. report card on higher education released Wednesday.
The report, issued by the National Center for Public Policy and Education, said families are paying 78 percent of their income for their students to attend private institutions in the commonwealth. This is well over double the 32 percent share that families pay in the top-performing states.
For those who attend state community colleges, their families are paying 21 percent of their income, compared with an average of 16 percent in other states.
Overall, the report gave Massachusetts a "D-" for affordability.
Stephanie Doussard, a Gloucester resident and student at Salem State College, was not surprised by these figures. Because of this year's massive state budget cuts for public higher education, Doussard's annual school fees have increased $900, and her college has cut back on a number of expenditures.
"Now I'm paying $900 more this year, and don't even have books in the library to do my homework," Doussard said.
Since Massachusetts cut its higher education funding in December by 6.2 percent, Salem State has cut back on scholarship awards, closed computer labs and discontinued purchase of numerous library materials.
"We have absolutely no new reference books," Doussard said. "And instead of having 35 periodicals on the shelf, we have about six."
Since the cuts in December, a large grassroots effort is emerging on campus at Salem State. Students and alumni have created an organization, Community Action Network, aimed at restoring state funding for higher education.
The organization has held a teach-in on campus and encouraged students and faculty to write to their legislators and to Governor Jane Swift, a Republican.
"Every generation has a way to stand up for what they believe in," said Cindy McMahon, a junior at Salem State and a member of CAN. "This is our way."
CAN is trying to alert legislators that students who attend public colleges in Massachusetts are likelier than students who go to private colleges to stay within the state and contribute to the economic well-being of the commonwealth when they graduate.
"We are trying to get the state house to realize that public higher education is the solution to our economic problems in the commonwealth," McMahon said.
"We are in a desperate situation," said Sarah Newcomb, a member of CAN and a student-elected trustee of Salem State College.
Newcomb said that those who cannot afford to go to a large private university depend on public institutions for an education.
"State schools are usually the only outlet to change their economic situation," said Newcomb.
Wednesday's report wasn't the only one giving Massachusetts poor ratings for higher education.
In January, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a survey that rated Massachusetts second-to-last in state-sponsored funding for public higher education in fiscal year 2002.
In an interview on the rising cost of attending college, Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.), expressed frustration that North Shore students are struggling to pay for their education.
"It's a shame that Massachusetts is 49th out of 50 states," Tierney said. "It's not the Massachusetts that people really think of. We always think of it as being right up there amongst the top."
"I am a Salem State College product," Tierney added. "I wouldn't have probably been able to go to college anywhere (else) for financial reasons. My family just didn't have the money."
Though Tierney said he understood the budget crisis in Massachusetts, he was disappointed that higher education was not more of a priority for the State House.
"I don't know who the people that are cutting it think they are playing to. If they think they're being real fiscal conservatives playing to the business community, they're not," he said
In order to have "employable" people to contribute to the economic well being of the state, he said, students need access to quality education.
"And that means more than the ones that can just afford Harvard but the ones that can get an education by going through the public institutions too," he said.
"There's a lot of work to be done."
Published in The Gloucester Daily News, in Massachusetts
Hathaway a Miss in D.C.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 02, 2002--The poster for the new Hathaway retail store in the nation's capital shows off a handsome young man: sharply dressed, wearing a crisp Hathaway shirt and tie. The poster reads, "Support America in Style. Hathaway. Made in the USA since 1837."
Since its grand opening last month, the Hathaway store in downtown Washington remains in a disorganized state. The trademark button-down shirts are stacked messily on the shelves, still wrapped in plastic. An untidy array of neckties is displayed on a circular wooden table, and bowties hang in the corner of the small store on Connecticut Avenue.
"That shirt in the window looks sick," Marcus Lincoln, 19, said referring to a wrinkled button-down shirt and tie. Lincoln, who was dressed in a muscle-shirt, is the store's only salesman.
The Hathaway clothes are only part of the store's meager inventory. Other items in the store, including boxer shorts and plain cotton shirts, are from companies that make clothing in the United States such as Sweat X, based in Los Angeles, and No Fly Zone.
"I can't push sales with a store looking like this," Lincoln said.
The Made in the USA Foundation owns Hathaway's two retail shops, one of which is located in Freeport. The Hathaway merchandise is being sold at full price in the Washington location, even though the factory in Maine is expected to close permanently on Oct.18. Meanwhile, the foundation chairman, Joel Joseph, has said his organization is still trying to buy the company.
Joseph said in a phone interview that since the shop is small, with only one salesman, the store would remain closed on a normal business day "if an employee calls in sick."
Lincoln said that according to Joseph, an expected shipment of merchandise is on its way to the Washington store. "He said that shipment was coming. It was supposed to arrive last week," Lincoln said. "It's probably his [Joseph's] fault."
The shop is supposed to be open for business seven days a week, but it was closed on Tuesday. Joseph is scheduled to work Mondays and Tuesdays at the D.C. store, according to Lincoln, who works from Wednesdays to Sundays.
Joseph did not return a follow-up phone call for comment on Lincoln's remarks.
Overall, Hathaway's century-old solid reputation of fine quality shirts does not seem to make a difference in some people's eyes.
"It's still $45 a shirt," Lincoln said. "You can go right around the corner to Filene's Basement to buy a shirt for less."
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
Debate Heats Up In Senate After House Resolution
By Andrew Kosow
WASHINGTON, Oct. 02, 2002--Talk of war heated up on Capitol Hill Wednesday as President Bush and the House leadership reached swift agreement on a resolution was between and on that would grant Bush the authority he seeks to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D - Conn) quickly introduced an identical amendment in the Senate.
"You don't sit back and wait for the mushroom cloud," said Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays (R -4th) at a subcommittee hearing Wednesday afternoon on the Iraqi threat. "Containment, deterrence and mutually assured destruction no longer can assure our safety."
Under Wednesday's arrangement with House leaders, Bush, before using military force, must certify to Congress that diplomacy alone cannot protect U.S. citizens from weapons of mass destruction. In addition, he must notify Congress 48 hours before attacking Iraq.
"I am encouraged it was done in a bipartisan way," Shays said. " I am also happy that it seems to give the president the ability to act unilaterally if circumstances call for it." Shays said that he supports United Nations inspections of Iraq's suspected weapons-of-mass-destruction sites but only if they are "totally unfettered and without conditions."
Lieberman, who previously voiced concern that any debate on Iraq before the elections would be too emotionally charged, said today at a White House press conference that the time has come to confront Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Lieberman said e was confident the resolution would pass within a week with a "very large bipartisan majority."
"We can no longer tolerate the intransigence and danger posed by Saddam Hussein," Lieberman said. "This resolution is our attempt to express our support of the president as commander-in-chief in seeking international backing for action against Saddam. It is also a way to strengthen the president's hand as commander-in-chief if Saddam does not comply or the United Nations is not willing to take action to enforce its orders."
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D - Conn) said in a press release, "This resolution is clearly an improvement over the one originally proposed by the President, which amounted to a blank check for military action in the region." Dodd also said he was satisfied that the president understood the need to try to act in conjunction with U.S. allies.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Shays chaired a hearing by the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations on the Iraqi threat, where he tried to highlight what he said was the enormity of the task faced by weapons inspectors in Iraq.
He pointed to a satellite photo of one of the sprawling compounds of Saddam Hussein's Mosul presidential palace that Iraq says would be off limits to weapons inspectors. The picture appears to show hardened bunkers, hardened storage warehouses and a command and control facility.
He then took out a twine ball the size of a softball and said it represented the amount of plutonium Iraq would need to build a nuclear device. "There are thousands of these softballs currently in unguarded facilities in Russia," Shays said, referring to a tour he took of Russian nuclear facilities. "Once Saddam gets one, he would have a bomb in six months."
Despite the evidence, Shays said, "constituents who contact me are 40 to 1 against any action in Iraq." Shays said he listens to his constituents, but that he thinks the 70 families from the 4th District who lost loved ones on Sept. 11 understand-- as he does from holding 34 hearings on terrorism and attending many security briefings-- that there is no line that terrorists and people who hate the United States will not cross.
Published in The Hour, in Connecticut.
