Category: Fall 2002 Newswire
Heating Home With Oil Expected to Jump: Warmer Weather may Lower need, However
By Randy Trick
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--The Energy Department predicts the cost of heating the average home with heating oil will increase 42 percent this winter, which has area residents and oil distributors nervous.
The department's forecast, the first so far for the coming winter, predicts the national price of heating oil will rise 15 to 24 percent over last year. The report also forecasts that demand for heating oil will be up by about 18 percent.
The report released last week by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) based its predictions solely on factors affecting the price of crude oil, such as volatility in the Middle East and domestic stockpiles that affect the level of supply. The report considers past oil usage in calculating demand, but does not take into account the predicted severity of the winter.
"We don't try to forecast the weather. We assume it will be a normal winter," said Jonathan Cogan, an EIA energy information specialist.
The EIA is the Energy Department's primary source of comprehensive energy information and statistics. Cogan said the agency's forecasts are updated every month and do a good job forecasting what actual prices will be. Prices in the Northeast rarely vary from national prices because the region is the largest consumer of heating oil, he said.
"We're pretty good at predicting what's going to happen," Cogan said. If anything, he added, "Massachusetts prices may be slightly lower."
But that's little consolation to area residents still facing a hefty increase.
Alice Kluk paid $1,313 to heat her home in Lawrence during the bitter winter of 2000-2001.
Last year, which was much warmer, her bill dropped to $911. The prospect of quadruple-digit costs to stay warm this year is not comforting.
Her house, a refashioned farmhouse that has been in her family for about 90 years has one thermostat, so the entire house is always heated. Based on the Energy Department's forecast, Kluk is looking at a bill near $1,300.
"I'll get by," she said. The 81-year-old widow of 19 years said she has the money to pay higher rates but was not enthusiastic about paying.
"I know everything else is going up - gas, electricity. I'm sure oil will go up too, especially with the situation the world's in," Kluk said.
Companies that sell heating oil are not enthusiastic about the predictions either, although few expressed surprise.
"We keep a close eye on prices," said Lee Marchand III, President of Colonial Oil, in Lowell.
Marchand said he expects prices to be 10 to 15 percent higher than last year's, and figures prices will stay below $1.19 a gallon.
Last year, with winter temperatures warmer than normal, businesses like Marchand's were hurt by low demand and sales were off, he said. "We're still trying to catch up from last year," Marchand said.
"We like it when heating oil prices go down, because competition decreases, and it saves customers money," he said.
When prices increase, he said, heating oil distributors in New England "start climbing all over each other," hurting businesses and driving up prices further for residential customers. "It's the little guy that gets hurt."
Colonial Oil, serving customers within a 20-mile radius of Lowell, is admittedly a "little guy," according to Marchand.
Besides the availability of oil, weather factors affecting demand contribute to overall heating costs.
Yesterday the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration released its climate predictions for the coming fall and winter, saying Northeasterners can expect warmer than usual conditions.
"Expect something much like last year," said Jim Laver, director of the climate prediction center at the national weather office.
A moderate El Nino system in the Pacific Ocean will make the northern part of the nation warmer than usual, while the southern tier will be wetter than usual, the agency said.
"By no means do we imply there won't be winter," Laver said. "It's twice as likely there will be East Coast storms," but they will be warmer.
To businesses whose bottom line relies on heating oil demand, the winter outlook is not great news.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Kerry Encouraged by U.N. Address
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) Thursday commended President Bush's U.N. address as an important first step toward rehabilitating the administration's campaign for action against Iraq.
"I thought the president gave a strong speech, an important speech, and certainly clearly articulated the egregious behavior of Saddam Hussein over the course of the past year," Kerry said at a press conference.
At the same time, he expressed frustration that the administration had delayed so long in taking its case to the international community, saying that "each and every point that was named today could have been named at the beginning of this administration, or any month into this administration."
Kerry noted that going to the United Nations was a step he and other prominent Washington figures had been advocating for months. Joining Kerry on this front have been former Secretary of State James Baker III, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and fellow Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
As the international community begins considering its own response to the president's address, Kerry called for both Congress and the president to exercise prudence when considering further action in the weeks to come.
The senator was firm in his reluctance to pursue a congressional resolution backing the use of force too quickly. "I think you need to give this United Nations process a legitimate opportunity," he warned, "because we don't want to see this initiative turned into a charade."
Kerry also was resolute in insisting that all possible alternatives to a full-scale invasion of Iraq be pursued before the nation commits itself to such a potentially massive undertaking. If you're going to go to war, he cautioned, "do it because you have to, not because you want to."
Overall, however, the senator spoke favorably of Bush's address. "The embracing of the international community by this administration, finally, I think is important for our country and can only result in the strengthening of our capacity to provide for the national security needs of our nation," Kerry said.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
New Hampshire Delegation Reacts Favorably to Bush’s U.N. Speech
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18, 2002--New Hampshire's all-Republican congressional delegation reacted with overwhelming support to President George W. Bush's speech on Iraq yesterday before the United Nations General Assembly.
"President Bush has my unwavering support in his effort to bring about a change in leadership in Iraq and wipe out terrorism," Rep. Charles Bass said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East and poses a serious threat to the United States and the rest of the world."
Throughout his speech, Bush alluded to potential military action against Iraq, saying that if conditions are not met, action will become unavoidable. "My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge," he said. "If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account."
Sen. Judd Gregg called Hussein "a thug and an international criminal" and said it is the obligation of the United States to lead the free world and the U.N. community. Gregg said that although he hopes Bush's speech will promote support from the United Nations, "protecting our national security is something we should always be willing to go alone."
Bush's conditions for a new U.N. resolution include Iraq's disclosing the locations of or destroying all weapons of mass destruction, ending persecution of its civilian population, releasing or accounting for all Gulf War personnel and ending illicit trade outside of the oil-for-food program.
Rep. John Sununu said he appreciated Bush's clarity, force and directness throughout his speech, and supports Bush's assertions that Iraq must meet conditions set forth by the United Nations.
He added that his views on action against Iraq would not be influenced by his Senate campaign against Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat. "This isn't about politics, this is about doing what's in the nation's best interest," Sununu said. "I hope that every member of Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, will give the President the benefit of the doubt to propose an option regarding Hussein and Iraq and then weigh that option," he said.
Gregg, who said he believes the president soon will ask Congress to act, agreed with Sununu.
In a statement, Sen. Bob Smith pledged his support to Bush and said the president made a strong case against Iraq for its violation of U.N. resolutions.
"We cannot afford to wait to let Saddam Hussein build weapons of mass destruction to use against our forces deployed overseas or to commit terrorist acts on U.S. soil," Smith said.
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Tierney Remains ‘Skeptical’ About Iraq
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--Responding to President Bush's speech before the United Nations General Assembly Thursday, Rep. John Tierney, D-Salem, agreed that the president should try to work with the United Nations on Iraq.
"It appears that at least the president is refocusing to look at international issues" through the United Nations, Tierney said in an interview Thursday.
Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John Kerry, D-Mass., joined Tierney in his assessment of Bush's speech, which was delivered as the Bush administration considers an invasion of Iraq.
"I commend President Bush for expressing America's willingness to work with the United Nations," Kennedy said in a press release Thursday. "The world community has a clear responsibility to do all it can to prevent Iraq from threatening other nations with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."
At a press conference Thursday, Kerry expressed his agreement with Bush's willingness to work with the United Nations.
"It's important to support the president and it's important to support the approach to the United Nations and it's important to support the definition of (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein as a problem. But I think it would be a mistake for us to declare … unilateral steps we will take, no matter what the United Nations does."
In an interview Wednesday, Tierney had said he was "skeptical" about a U.S. invasion of Iraq because he thought the president still needed to make a stronger case to Tierney and his fellow lawmakers. Bush's speech the following day did not change his mind, Tierney said Thursday.
In the Wednesday interview, Tierney said that he has received several hundred letters, e-mails and phone calls from his North Shore constituents, and even has had people stopping him on the street opposing an invasion of Iraq. He said he had heard from only three or four constituents who support the president. "People are dealing with the information that they have now," he said, adding that as more information is revealed, they will begin to reexamine the issue.
As for Tierney's fellow lawmakers, the president has not asked them to decide on an invasion of Iraq, Tierney said, adding that Bush has not produced enough evidence to convince him of the need for an immediate invasion: "[Bush] hasn't met the threshold."
Questions still must be answered for him to make the decision on invading Iraq, Tierney said, adding that Bush has to lay the groundwork for a possible invasion.
"Why we should change a long, long history of not taking preemptive actions?" Tierney asked. "[Bush] has to engage the international community, he has to engage Congress, he has to make his case to the American people. Has he been clear to the American people of the sacrifice from them - how many troops will be committed? Has he described the …nature of the invasion - who will replace Saddam Hussein, will the U.S. be involved in nation-building?"
Tierney, a member of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations, wrote a letter Tuesday to Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., chairman of the subcommittee, requesting that the panel "hold a hearing on the potentially wide-ranging dangers that U.S. troops and our regional allies could encounter if the United States decided to pursue an invasion of Iraq."
Saddam Hussein does pose a danger, Tierney said Wednesday. But the congressman questioned whether the danger was immediate: "Is he dangerous in the context of the area of Iraq? We are still gathering evidence on whether or not he has the capacity to endanger imminently the U.S."
"I think we've finally convinced the president that this is not the right thing to do without first making his case," Tierney said.
Published in The Salem News, in Massachusetts.
Kerry Says Bush U.N. Speech a Good Step, But Not Enough for War
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. applauded President Bush's speech to the United Nations Thursday as an effort to gather international support for ousting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. However, Kerry said military force should be used only as a last resort.
"If you're going to go to war…you do so because you have to, not because you want to," he said at a Capitol Hill press conference. "I think that's the only way you can look a parent in the face if they have lost a son or daughter, saying that 'we really didn't have any choice.' "
Kerry's comments were in response to Bush's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in which the president called upon the U.N. to require Iraq to honor its commitments.
"The Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge," asserted Bush.
The president also asked world leaders to move "deliberately" and "decisively" against Saddam if he does not comply with U.N. resolutions.
Kerry said that Saddam's non-compliance with U.N. resolutions is not enough to justify the use of force to remove the Iraqi leader.
Two other members of the local delegation, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., Thursday expressed similar views to Kerry's.
Though Kerry said it was important for Congress to support the president's efforts in consulting with the U.N., he urged the Bush administration to continue working closely with the international community to come to a consensus on the best way to deal with the Iraqi regime.
"It's important to support the president, and it's important to support the approach to the United Nations, and it's important to support the definition of Saddam Hussein as a problem," he said. "But I think it would be a mistake for us to declare … unilateral steps we will take, no matter what the United Nations does."
In an interview today, Tierney also praised Bush for making a positive first step in addressing the worldwide community.
"It appears that at least the president is refocusing to look at international issues" by consulting with the U.N., he said.
However, Tierney said he was "skeptical" about invading Iraq without any concrete evidence from the administration that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the U.S.
Kerry said that though the president had made a positive step in approaching the U.N., he still needed to make a case for war.
"I think the president today laid out a case for Saddam Hussein's egregious behavior with respect to the United Nations," he said. "I think the president could have… and will be connecting the dots with respect to the potential terrorist linkages."
Kerry said he did not expect Congress to vote on any resolution authorizing the use of force until the president had laid out a clear framework of where he intended to go with regard to Iraq and what role the U.N. would play in that action.
"If the President of the United States, as of this Sunday has not made up his mind as to what options to use, it is premature to come to Congress and tell us what we should do, when the president doesn't know what he's doing," said Kerry.
In a statement Kennedy said, "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious threat. I commend President Bush for expressing America's willingness to work with the United Nations to end that threat."
Published in The Gloucester Daily News, in Massachusetts
Maine Delegation Supports Bush’s New Direction
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--Members of Maine's congressional delegation applauded President Bush's willingness to cooperate with the United Nations on the possibility of striking against Iraq.
Bush addressed the U.N. General Assembly Thursday in an effort to make a clear case before the international community on the need to take swift action against the Iraqi regime.
"Today, President Bush forcefully and definitively framed how Saddam Hussein's regime has systematically flouted 16 separate U.N. Security Council resolutions and international law over the past decade," said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R).
Snowe also said that Bush's address will open important communications between Congress and the United Nations on Iraq's future.
Snowe also commended Bush for "calling on the Security Council to enforce all of its resolutions, and demand that Saddam Hussein comply."
Sen. Susan Collins (R) said in a written statement that she believes Bush's speech shows that his administration is on the right track.
"It is important he continue consulting with our allies, Congress and the American people as he develops a case for a possible strike again," Collins said.
All members of the Maine congressional delegation stressed the importance of multilateral cooperation. Rep. John Baldacci (D) said in a press release that he wants to see all efforts moving in a timely manner to ensure success.
"The president was very forceful in urging the U.N. to compel Iraq to comply with the U.N.," Baldacci said in an interview. "It's important for the U.N. to go in unfettered to be able to make sure that once and for all the treaty from the Gulf War that was signed by Iraq be adhered to and certified."
Rep. Tom Allen (D) also agreed that Bush is taking the right steps to open a new debate over how exactly to deal with Iraq. But he does not believe the United States is in immediate danger.
"While Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction is a real concern, I have yet to see compelling evidence that it presents a direct and urgent threat to the United States," Allen said.
Allen, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he has been involved in several classified meetings with U.S. intelligence officials about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, as well as in hearings with two former U.N. weapons inspectors.
"We have time to consider all the policy options and to work in concert with the international community," Allen said in a press release.
Allen also has raised questions about Iraq's future should Hussein's regime topple. "What happens to Iraq?" he said in an interview. "If we think Afghanistan is hard to reconstruct, I know Iraq is likely to be more difficult."
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
Delegates Won’t Give Up On Hathaway
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--A potential contract between the C.F. Hathaway Co. in Waterville and the Air Force has fallen through, leaving Maine's congressional delegation looking for ways to keep the shirt company from closing in late September.
The $5 million contract was considered crucial to keeping the company afloat and keeping 300 jobs in Maine. Now, with an uncertain future, the company is still in the running for a Navy contract of 26,000 shirts a year-- a far cry from the 386,000 shirts the Air Force deal would have brought.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, spoke Thursday morning with Vice Admiral Keith W. Lippert, director of the Defense Logistics Agency, to express her concern about the basis for the decision, which awarded the contract to a small Kentucky company, Ashland Sales and Service Company.
"I told Admiral Lippert I am deeply dismayed and disappointed by this decision, particularly in light of the repeated delays and ensuing confusion in this process," said Snowe in a statement Thursday. "I continue to believe that Hathaway had a strong bid that could have offered the best value to taxpayers."
Snowe, along with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, stands ready to support Hathaway should it decide to appeal. Collins said she would work to reverse the decision.
"This is a very disappointing outcome, especially following so many delays in the process," Collins said in a statement Thursday. "I will work closely…to try to reverse this unfortunate result."
Rep. John E. Baldacci, D-District 2, said he was disappointed the company wasn't selected, but expressed hope Hathaway could win future contracts. "They need to get the latest in technology upgrades and invest in the people and equipment, so they will be able to compete," Baldacci said in an interview Thursday.
Baldacci said he recently visited the Biddeford Textile plant, which manufactures electric blankets. He said he sees Hathaway prospering with a similar strategy.
Rep. Tom Allen, D-District 1, said he is optimistic that Hathaway will not fold.
"I do not think it will fold if it's purchased by the Made in the USA Foundation. I don't think [the Air Force contract] was essential to the deal," Allen said in an interview +Thursday.
The Made in the USA Foundation, a nonprofit group, is negotiating a deal to buy the struggling dress-shirt company. The Made in the USA Foundation's willingness is not contingent on Hathaway's gaining the Air Force contract, Allen said.
Baldacci's advice for the company: "Invest in people. Invest in equipment. If you don't do either, I think it makes it a lot harder."
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
Smith Ditches GOP Unity for Senate Floor Action
By Max Heuer
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH), who lost his reelection bid to Rep. John Sununu in Tuesday's primary election, was skipping a Republican Unity Breakfast Thursday morning in New Hampshire so that he could be on hand that day to cast an important vote on the Senate floor, his staff said Wednesday.
But Smith did not vote on Thursday's first order of business, a 10 a.m. roll-call vote on the nomination of Timothy J. Corrigan of Florida to be a U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. The nomination was approved, 88-0.
Smith also failed to vote in the afternoon on two amendments to the Homeland Security bill.
On Wednesday, a spokesman for Smith said he would have attended the breakfast if not for key votes on the Senate floor. "Otherwise, he'd be" at the breakfast, Smith's press secretary Lisa Harrison told the Union Leader on Wednesday. "He said he would spend the rest of his term furthering President Bush's agenda on homeland security and fighting terrorism," she said.
But on Thursday, Harrison backtracked. "We called the Republican cloakroom (on Wednesday) and (officials there) just told us there were votes," she said, without specifying what the votes were on.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) attended the breakfast event in New Hampshire and flew directly to Washington, missing the early vote but making both roll calls later in the day on the Homeland Security bill.
Smith, who did not return phone calls, was driving back to Washington on Thursday morning, according to Harrison.
Gregg said he was not concerned that Smith's actions reflected any division in the party.
"Sometimes when something like this happens you've got to take some time and put your house in order," Gregg said, referring to Smith's defeat. He added that he had no doubt Smith is supporting "Sununu, the Republican party and the agenda of George W. Bush."
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Delegation Praises Bush Speech
By Max Heuer
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002--New Hampshire's Republican congressional delegation reacted to President Bush's speech to the United Nations Thursday on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with resounding approval.
"I thought the president's speech was excellent," Sen. Judd Gregg said. "He really put forward the case why Hussein is a threat."
Rep. Charlie Bass said in a statement that he applauded Bush's resolve on Hussein and fully supports the effort to effect a change in leadership in Iraq.
"The President made a strong case that Iraq is violating U.N. resolutions demanding inspections of suspected weapons sites," Sen. Bob Smith, who was recently defeated in his primary bid for reelection by Rep. John Sununu, said in a press release.
Sununu said the president was "clear, forceful and direct."
Still, some of the lawmakers remained guarded on the real potential for a full-scale war.
While Bush, in his address before the U.N. General Assembly, promised that the United States was committed to confronting Iraqi noncompliance with U.N. resolutions, he did not set a formal timetable for attack.
Such a timetable would be "premature," Gregg said.
"The president is pulling together a coalition and getting support from the international community," Gregg said, adding he suspected the United States would have the support of most democracies around the world.
In his speech, Bush directed responsibility to the United Nations, telling the General Assembly that the world body was at a crossroads and could become "irrelevant."
But Bush did not offer any specifics on actions against Iraq, instead issuing demands of Hussein.
"I don't think (Bush has) made a clear determination of what the next steps are in the region," Sununu said after praising the speech.
Sununu added that the United States was already "engaged" in the region. He cited no-fly zones enforced by the United States and Britain in northern Iraq, as well as recent air-to-air combat in the region.
All of these steps, Sununu said, already serve the interests of U.S. policy in opposition to Hussein.
Bush stressed Iraq's lack of compliance with a multitude of U.N. resolutions dating as far back as 1991, most notably in relation to Iraq's development of biological weapons, its refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country in the past four years, and its potential for nuclear development.
"Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it could create nuclear weapons within a year," Bush told U.N. delegates from around the world. He called any U.N. inaction on Iraq a "reckless gamble."
But Gregg said he thought that U.S. aid to Afghanistan, and its ongoing involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could slow an offensive on Iraq.
"Resources are always an issue," he said. But Gregg added he thought that Bush would not "move forward in Iraq" until the military could guarantee minimal loss of American life.
"We cannot afford to wait to let Saddam Hussein build weapons of mass destruction" that could be used against Americans at home and abroad, Smith agreed.
"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolution, but the purpose of the U.S. should not be doubted," Bush said. "The Security Council resolutions will be enforced or action will be unavoidable."
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
