Category: Rebecca Evans
UMass Dartmouth May Receive $1 Billion for Research
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON – Textile and cranberry research projects at the University of Massachusetts could receive a windfall of more than $1 million in federal funds if the U.S. Senate approves the $820 billion spending bill that the House passed on Monday by a vote of 242-176.
The Senate is expected to vote on the measure when Congress reconvenes in January.
The legislation, which allocates funds for most federal departments and agencies, earmarks $870,000 for the National Textile Centers program at UMass Dartmouth and $154,000 for cranberry research at the UMass Cranberry Station in East Wareham.
“These funds will help the university continue its important role in the economy of Southeastern Massachusetts,” Rep. Barney Frank, D-New Bedford, said in a statement. “The cranberry and textile industries are key elements of that economy, and the university has demonstrated an ability to help them meet the competitive challenges they face.”
Research scientists at the textile center collaborate with businesses and the military to find solutions to real-world problems, such as the threat of biological warfare, said Paul Vigeant, assistant chancellor of UMass Dartmouth.
“The funding allows us to focus on science that will create the next generation of advanced materials used for scientific, technological and commercial products,” he said.
Current projects include the development of military uniforms that can detect biological agents and self-cleaning shirts made from fabric that contains odor-eating bacteria.
“This is really cool science,” Mr. Vigeant said.
The cranberry money would be used primarily for weed and pest control research, which is necessary to grow different strands of cranberries.
Scientists are also studying the health benefits of cranberries, which may include the prevention of kidney, coronary and gum disease.
“They are trying to understand how a berry that has been taken for granted for so long a time can improve the quality of life for so many people,” Mr. Vigeant said. “Funding is so important.”
In past years, the Massachusetts congressional delegation has secured funds for textile and cranberry research. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., will push for continued funding when the Senate debates the appropriations bill next year.
“This research has direct bearing on the SouthCoast economy,” he said in a statement. “I am greatly appreciative that our colleagues have included it in the final budget agreement.”
Mercury Poisoning Fishing for Answers
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - When he was 9 years old, Jim Simmons fished for his dinner in Turner Pond, which straddles the Dartmouth-New Bedford line. Each night, his mother would fry the catfish he caught after school.
Forty-six years later, there are no more fish in the pond worth catching. "All the fish - perch and sunfish -- they're all gone. The only thing left are eels and turtles," Mr. Simmons said in a recent interview. "You can't even catch catfish because there are such high levels of mercury."
The fish in Turner Pond and nearby lakes and streams have been contaminated by mercury emissions from the Brayton Point Station, one of the state's oldest coal-fired power plants, said Mr. Simmons, who now runs an organization that battles mercury emissions. Brayton Point Station is the largest source of industrial air pollution in New England, according to the Conservation Law Foundation.
Each year, Massachusetts' four coal-fired power plants emit an estimated 185 pounds of mercury from their smokestacks, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has reported.
Once released, mercury travels through the air and settles in bodies of water, where bacteria transform it into methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin that is absorbed by fresh and saltwater fish and passed through the food chain to people. Mr. Simmons, who is president of the Hands Across the River Coalition, wants to protect children from neurological disorders associated with eating mercury-contaminated fish.
"We have to act now to change the emissions standards," he said. "We need the help of city councilors, mayors, state representatives and state senators."
The Hands Across the River Coalition and other environmental groups have spent years trying to eliminate mercury emissions from the state's oldest power plants.
They won a victory in September when Gov. Mitt Romney and the state Department of Environmental Protection proposed regulations that would require Brayton Point Station, Somerset Station, Salem Harbor Station and Mount Tom Station in Holyoke to eliminate 85 percent of mercury emissions by 2006 and 95 percent by 2012.
Massachusetts health officials warn pregnant women, nursing mothers, women of childbearing age and young children not to eat any freshwater fish caught in the state or any shark, swordfish, king mackerel, tuna or tilefish.
The federal government doesn't go quite that far. The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have just drafted a proposed warning adding tuna to the list of fish and shellfish that people in those categories should eat less of. A 2003 study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 8 percent of women of childbearing age had blood mercury levels above those EPA has deemed safe. The study estimated that approximately 320,000 children born in the United States each year are at risk of adverse health effects from mercury-contaminated fish.
Studies have shown that mercury exposure in children can lead to neurological damage, including attention and language deficits, impaired memory, inability to process and recall information and impaired visual and motor functions.
Parents in Fall River are concerned that mercury poisoning may be the reason behind the high number of children who have been diagnosed there with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They also worry mercury emissions could lead to increased rates of autism and dyslexia, though scientists have not drawn such conclusions.
"There is no proven link between mercury and autism and ADHD," said Dr. Jefferson H. Dickey, professor of environmental health at UMass-Amherst. "But the one thing we are learning about mercury is that it is very clearly associated with some learning disabilities."
Dr. Jeannine Audet, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at the Center for Children and Families at St. Anne's Hospital in Fall River, said cases of autism and ADHD were "no more prevalent" in Fall River than in other parts of the state. But Rochelle Pettanati, who teaches art at Kuss Middle School in Fall River, said she sees the problem firsthand at school and at home.
"The number of cases of ADHD is amazing," she said. "So many children have attention problems in our schools."
Ms. Pettanati, who lives about 6 miles from Brayton Point Station, said her two sons have ADHD and many of her neighbors have been diagnosed with cancer. She said she fears that mercury emissions from the plant are responsible for the health problems in her neighborhood.
"We're thinking about moving away from the plant," she said.
Ms. Pettanati said she never knew it could be unsafe to serve her family fresh fish.
"There is a lack of education," she said. "We know lots of fishermen, and I always thought it was wonderful to get fresh fish, scallops and lobsterá. I didn't know I could be potentially harming my family. It is very upsetting."
Dave Dionne, a spokesman for the Campaign to Clean Up Brayton Point Power Plant, said many poor immigrants in Fall River supplement their diets with fish caught in local rivers and ponds.
They often are unaware of the state's fish advisories, he said.
"Fall River is not a rich communityá. This is an economic justice issue," he said. "There are no signs that I can find anywhere that say do not eat the fish, in any language."
Ms. Pettanati and Mr. Dionne recently attended a public hearing in Fall River on the Department of Environmental Protection's proposed mercury emissions regulations.
Mr. Dionne said the draft regulations are good, but he and other environmentalists are concerned about a proposed alternative--a trading system that would give more flexibility to power plants that cannot meet the 2006 deadlines. Under the plan, some plants could receive credit for reducing mercury emissions at off-site locations and for recycling mercury in thermometers and other products.
"The trading system proposed by the DEP would allow an actual emitting facility with a smokestack to trade with a potentially emitting facility like a lab or school," said Frank Gorke, an energy specialist for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. "We think it is problematic."
Some power plants have requested more time to install expensive mercury pollution controls, said Ed Coletta, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection. The electric utilities industry opposes stricter regulations even while acknowledging that mercury emissions can harm the environment.
Robert Rio, vice president of environmental programs for Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the state's coal-burning power plants have already made significant mercury emissions reductions. Further reductions would cost millions of dollars and would have little impact on the environment, he said.
"There is no evidence at all that removing that amount of mercury from power plants will make that much difference at all," Mr. Rio said. "The worst part about the whole thing is that most of the mercury we get here is from upwind power plants."
In 1996, the Department of Environmental Protection estimated that 59 percent of mercury emissions in Massachusetts came from out-of-state sources. Environmentalists agree that reducing mercury emissions in other states is key to protecting the health of Massachusetts residents.
"We need to be concerned about our own pollution and pollution from other states," Mr. Gorke said. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration is not helping us out at the federal level."
According to EPA documents, the Bush administration is proposing mercury regulations that are less stringent than those for other toxic air pollutants. Instead of requiring coal-fired power plants to install maximum pollution controls, Bush's "cap and trade" program would allow plants to buy and sell the right to emit mercury into the air. The market-based system, which is supported by energy producers, is modeled after a sulfur dioxide trading program designed to combat acid rain.
"We know from evidence that cap and trade programs work better than the current command and control approach," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of utilities, power companies, unions and businesses. "The trading program puts the onus on the company and gives a financial incentive to reduce pollution. That is why it works better."
Environmentalists worry that President Bush's proposal would create mercury "hot spots" around the dirtiest power plants, which could opt to pay cleaner plants to reduce emissions rather than install expensive pollution controls.
"We are very concerned about the prospect of mercury trading at the federal level," said Cindy Luppi, the New England coordinating director for Clean Water Action, an environmental advocacy group.
"Our top goal is to make sure that the families who live in the shadows of the smokestacks of the affected power plants see real relief from this pollution." Massachusetts' proposed mercury regulations should not be affected by weaker federal standards, according to Mr. Gorke. But the state's air quality could be harmed anyway, he said.
"The main reason to be concerned about what the feds are doing is that we do get some mercury in our environment from upwind sources. It could hurt our environment if the feds are relaxing requirements in Ohio and other states," he said.
Mr. Simmons said his Hands Across the River Coalition will not rest until there are zero mercury emissions from Brayton Point.
"We can't wait for the President to do something about the plant," he said. "We have to do this on our own, by lobbying our lawmakers and saying enough is enough."
Senate Passes National Credit Reporting Bill
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted 95-2 on Wednesday in favor of a national credit reporting bill that legislators say would protect consumers from the growing crime of identity theft.
But consumer advocacy groups said that lawmakers had missed an opportunity to pass tougher legislation that would prevent banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions from sharing consumers' personal information.
The controversial bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), includes provisions to fight identity theft but does nothing to stop affiliate-sharing of consumer information. The bill, along with the House-passed version, now goes to conference.
Ed Mierzwinski, a consumer advocate with the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, said he was "extremely disappointed" that the Senate had chosen "to permanently take away state rights to protect consumer privacy."
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the only two senators to vote against the bill, sponsored an amendment that would have allowed consumers to request that financial institutions not share their personal information with affiliates.
The Senate rejected their amendment, which was patterned after a new California law, by a vote of 70-24.
"I think time will show that this was the wrong vote, and I have no doubt that this issue will resurface as consumers learn more about the misuse of their most sensitive personal information," Sen. Feinstein said.
Sen. Shelby said his bill "strikes a careful balance between ensuring the efficient operation of our markets and protecting the rights of consumers."
He said it would cut down on identity theft by requiring merchants to eliminate credit card and bank account numbers on electronic receipts, increasing the maximum penalty for identity theft from three to five years in prison and allowing consumers to place fraud alerts on their credit reports if they suspect they have been victims of identity theft.
The Bush administration announced its support for Shelby's bill, saying it would strengthen "the national credit reporting system that has proven critical to the resilience of consumer spending and the overall economy" and protect consumers by "including new tools to improve the accuracy of credit information and help fight identity theft."
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said Bush's support of the legislation violated his "strong and explicit campaign promises to allow consumers to have 'absolute' control over their private information."
The organization sent a letter to the President on Wednesday, which said: "While campaigning in 2000 you promised voters in the strongest and most explicit possible terms that you would protect our privacy if elected President. Those commitments do not square with your Administration's support of legislation to give banks free rein to share information with thousands of corporate affiliates."
Consumer groups say they will watch closely as the legislation moves into conference committee, but they are not optimistic that the final bill will do enough to protect consumers.
"Without a clear statement from Congress and President Bush that companies have to get permission before sharing information, the bill will fail to protect consumer privacy," said Jerry Flanagan, spokesman for the FTCR. "If they are not addressing the heart of financial privacy legislation, Americans won't have the privacy that they deserve."
Kennedy Defends Senate Filibuster of Judicial Nominees
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - - During a nearly 40-hour Senate debate that stretched from Wednesday evening to Friday morning, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., defended Democratic efforts to block confirmation votes on a handful of President Bush's federal judicial nominees.
Republican senators scheduled the nonstop session to protest Democratic filibusters that have prevented votes on the nominations of Priscilla R. Owen of Texas, Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. District Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. of Mississippi, and Washington lawyer Miguel A. Estrada, who was so frustrated he withdrew his name from consideration.
Following the marathon debate, Democrats again blocked a confirmation vote on Owen, in addition to Carolyn B. Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown, both of California. Although they hold a majority with 51 senators, Republicans have been unable to muster the 60 votes necessary to end filibusters and hold up-or-down votes on several nominees.
Taking the floor during the 24th hour of the session, Sen. Kennedy delivered a history lesson on the judicial appointment process. He said the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution so that neither the President nor the Senate would have absolute control to determine who would sit on the federal bench.
"It's clear that the Constitutional Convention, which had repeatedly rejected the proposal to let the President alone elect the judges, did not intend the Senate to be a rubberstamp for the president," he said. "And it is equally clear that, especially when the Senate is controlled by the President's own party, the Founders did not intend the Senate to roll over and play dead whenever the President tells them to."
The Senate has confirmed 168 of Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats say they have blocked votes on only the most conservative nominees.
Sen. Kennedy said the high approval rate should satisfy Republicans.
"The Republican leadership on Capitol Hill is ridiculously out of touch with reality in AmericaáThey've shut down the entire United States Senate over four remaining right-wing, anti-abortion turkeys who we won't put on the courts," he said in a statement issued before another two nominees were added to the list.
With little time left before Congress recesses for the holidays, Democrats said Republican were wasting time debating a few judicial nominations rather than working on issues critical to millions of Americans, such as Medicare reform and the nation's energy policy.
Sen. Kennedy said the time would be better spent discussing educational issues, including college affordability and funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, a 2001 law that calls for tougher accountability in low-performing schools.
"We wish our friends from the other side in the last 20 hours had mentioned assistance, had mentioned affordability, but they have been absolutely silent," he said. "We think that the families in our country want us to be talking about education and doing something about it rather than droning on in the way that they have."
Senate Set to Vote on National Privacy Standard
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - Flying above the headquarters of Citigroup Inc. in Midtown Manhattan last week, a lone airplane scrawled five digits across a clear-blue sky: the first part of Citigroup Chairman Charles Prince's Social Security number.
The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, a California-based consumer group, used the skywriting stunt to illustrate the problem of identity theft and to protest Citigroup's support of financial privacy legislation that will be debated in the U.S. Senate this week.
The controversial bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), would reauthorize the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a 1970 federal law that established national credit reporting standards. Unless reauthorized, several provisions of the law will expire at the end of the year.
Shelby's bill would strengthen existing law by requiring merchants to eliminate credit card and bank account numbers on electronic receipts, increasing the maximum penalty for identity theft from three to five years in prison and allowing consumers to place fraud alerts on their consumer reports.
But consumers' groups said the bill doesn't go far enough to protect Americans from the growing crime of identity theft, which occurs when someone steals a Social Security number or other personal information to obtain credit, merchandise or services in someone else's name.
The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights and other advocacy groups oppose a provision in the bill and in the current law that prevents states from passing financial privacy laws that are tougher than the federal law.
Jamie Court, executive director of the taxpayers' foundation, said the bill would prevent California's recently passed privacy law from taking effect next July as planned. The law would allow consumers to prevent financial institutions from giving or selling their private financial information to corporate affiliates.
If the federal bill is passed, it also would undermine legislation sponsored by Massachusetts State Rep. William M. Straus (D-Mattapoisett) that would provide consumers with the same protections as the California law, said Eric Bourassa, a consumer associate for the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.
Rep. Straus said he would "be disappointed if Congress takes away from the states the ability to provide strong privacy protectionsáMy personal hope is that they leave the states alone on this."
In 1995, Massachusetts became the first state to grant consumers the right to a free credit report each year, so they can better monitor their credit records for fraud. If the federal bill is passed, this law would remain intact, but additional privacy protections would be blocked.
California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, are expected to introduce an amendment to the federal bill that would limit the amount of sensitive consumer information corporations can disburse.
"The dirty little secret is that corporations can share private information with thousands of affiliatesá making it easier to know everything about everyone," Mr. Court said. To prove his point, he said he bought Mr. Prince's Social Security number on the Internet for $30. For the same price, Mr. Court's organization also bought the Social Security numbers of Gov. Mitt Romney and Mayor Thomas M. Menino in September.
A recent study by the Federal Trade Commission showed that nearly 10 million Americans, 2,957 of them Massachusetts residents, were victims of identity theft in 2002. Identity theft victims spend an average of $1,400 and 600 hours trying to clear their names, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, a nonprofit group dedicated to raising public awareness of identity theft.
Banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions support the federal bill, even though they are also victims of identity theft, according to lobbyists working on their behalf.
"Everyone knows that, at the end of day, financial institutions have to absorb the losses from identity theft," said Nessa Feddis, senior counsel at the American Bankers Association. The bankers' group belongs to the Financial Services Coordinating Council, which has lobbied in support of the bill.
Ms. Feddis said permanent federal pre-emption of state privacy laws would be necessary to preserve the current nationwide credit system "that allows anyone to get a credit card or mortgage from anywhere in the country.
"If you have 50 different states adopting different rules, it makes the credit system inefficient and expensive," she said. "We are talking about 50 different forms you have to fill out, which complicates things and adds expenses. There is no tangible consumer benefit."
Ms. Feddis said the federal bill includes new regulations that would protect consumers from identity theft and improve the accuracy and accessibility of consumer credit reports.
But consumer groups assert these measures are not strong enough. They say that if financial institutions were serious about cracking down on identity theft, they would support a stronger bill that prohibited affiliates from sharing consumer information. The institutions haven't done that, Mr. Court said, because it would cost them more than identity theft does.
"They want to be able to share information with any company they want, so they can market you in more ways," he said. "To them the cost of identity theft is an easy write-off compared to the benefits of trading personal information."
Massachusetts does not require companies to obtain permission from consumers before selling their private data.
Shelley Curran, policy analyst at the Consumers Union, a nonprofit testing organization that publishes Consumer Reports, said there is a "simple connection" between information sharing and identity theft.
"If a financial institution has 1,700 affiliates, that means information can be shared in 1,700 different places, making it easier for computer hackers to steal consumers' information," she said.
It is to protect this information sharing that Citigroup and other financial institutions have been "throwing megabucks" at members of the House and Senate banking committees to pass legislation that prevents states from enacting tough privacy laws, said Linda Foley, executive director of the Identity Theft Resource Center.
The Center for Responsive Politics, an independent organization that monitors campaign contributions, reported that Citigroup and other businesses that support the Senate bill contributed more than $471,000 in the first half of this year to Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which passed the bill.
"In terms of the banking committee, which obviously gets most of its money from banking and financial interests, it is not an uncommon concern that industry is giving influence by giving money," said Sheryl Fred, a researcher at the center. "Consumer groups are concerned because these consumer groups don't give a lot of money."
Citigroup spent $4.6 million on lobbying in the first six months of this year, according to a report filed with Congress. The investment bank is also the top contributor to Sen. Shelby's 2004 re-election campaign. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Citigroup contributed $62,000 to Sen. Shelby, who chairs the Senate banking committee.
Banks, credit unions, and insurers have also made major campaign contributions to members of the House Financial Services Committee, which passed a similar privacy bill in September. The House bill, which passed by a vote of 292-30, would permanently extend the 1996 Fair Credit Reporting Act provision that prevents states from enacting stronger privacy protections.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the senior Democrat on the committee, voted in favor of the bill. Frank received a $5,000 contribution from the American Bankers Association, a key supporter of the reauthorization bill. But spokespersons for consumer groups said Frank worked hard to add consumer protections to the bill.
"Barney Frank was trying to add amendments to strengthen what was already a bad bill," said Ms. Foley, of the Identity Theft Resource Center.
One of Frank's amendments, which was approved on the House floor by a vote of 233-189, would make it easier for consumers to identify and remove inaccurate information from their credit reports.
"I wanted to go further, but couldn't because of the Republican majority" in the House, Mr. Frank said. "We improved somewhat how a consumer can respond once they are a victim, but that's not enough."
Frank said consumers should be able to prevent companies from sharing their personal information.
Lawmakers who support the federal bill say it helps financial institutions and consumers alike.
"From Senator Shelby's perspective, it strikes a proper balance between the operation of consumer credit markets and consumer privacy concerns," said Andrew Gray, spokesman for Republicans on the Senate banking committee. He said the committee debated the legislation for six months and held half a dozen hearings.
"We were able to craft a strong, bipartisan legislation that received the unanimous support of the committee," he said. "The House passed a similar bill permanently extending the FCRA provision...Clearly, there is broad and overwhelming support in the U.S. Congress to enact an FCRA bill into law this year."
Ed Mierzwinski, a consumer advocate with the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, said he is concerned that the federal bill would stifle new ideas at the state-level.
"Virtually every piece of this bill is based on an existing state law," he said. "So if you permanently prevent states from passing laws in future, where will these ideas come from?"
Senate Approves Federal Abortion Ban
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate voted 64-34 on Tuesday in favor of legislation that would prevent doctors from performing an uncommon abortion procedure that opponents call "partial birth.". In early October, the House passed the ban by a vote of 281-142.
If President Bush signs the bill as promised, it will mark the first federal restriction on an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman's right to have an abortion in its Roe v. Wade ruling 30 years ago.
Several abortion-rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, said they would seek an immediate injunction to block the law from taking effect.
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, called the bill a "dangerous and deceptive" measure that would "criminalize safe and needed abortion procedures, hindering a woman's right to choose and have privacy and control of her body that U.S. Supreme Court and Constitution says she has a right to have.
"We are concerned about the impact it would have on all women throughout the country," she said.
Abortion opponents, meanwhile, cheered the Senate's approval of the ban, calling it a boon for future anti-abortion legislation.
"We are all excited here," said Marie Sturgis, executive and legislative director of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. "The bottom line is that it will restore the sanctity and protection of human life known as the right to life."
Abortion foes said the ban would end the "heinous procedure" known as intact dilation and extraction, which is sometimes performed during the final trimester of a pregnancy. But opponents of the bill say that its "vague wording" could also prevent doctors from performing many second-trimester abortions, which are protected under Roe v. Wade.
"The bill is terrible, from our point of view. It would criminalize safe medical procedures and have a chilling effect on doctors," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, which lobbies for abortion rights. "If doctors read the language, which describes many common and safe procedures used in the second and third trimesters, we fear they might start pulling away from performing earlier-term abortions."
Both Massachusetts senators voted against the bill. Sen. John F. Kerry took a break from his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and flew from New Hampshire to Washington to oppose the ban. His Senate office failed to return phone calls seeking comment on his vote.
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called the ban "blatantly unconstitutional.
"Women have a constitutional right to choose, and Congress should respect that right," Sen. Kennedy said in a statement.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., also voted against the measure in the House. According to the legislation, doctors that perform "partial birth" abortions would be subject to fines and prison terms of up to two years.
"We already have a problem with enough physicians being trained and not wanting their lives to be at risk," said Dianne Luby, president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.
Abortion-rights groups also contend that the ban is dangerous because it does not include an exemption to allow for late-term abortions that would protect the health of the woman.
Massachusetts law prohibits any abortion following the 23rd week of pregnancy unless it would "save the woman's life" or "eliminate a substantial risk of grave impairment to her physical or mental health."
In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law that banned partial-birth abortions, ruling it was unconstitutional because it did not adequately define the prohibited procedure and did not allow it to preserve a woman's health. Abortion-rights advocates say the legislation passed by Congress is similar to the Nebraska law, but abortion opponents say there are critical differences.
"I believe [legislators] have worked very carefully to draft language that will pass muster with the courts," said Dr. Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization that opposes abortion.
In 1996 and 1997, then-President Bill Clinton vetoed similar "partial birth" abortion bills because they did not include exceptions for a woman's health.
"We are cautiously optimistic this time that we are going to get a bill signed into law," said Dr. Crews.
Tobacco Regulation Bill Unlikely to Pass This Year
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - Every day, tobacco-related illnesses kill 28 Massachusetts residents; every year, 24,000 Massachusetts children become daily smokers, according to the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group.
Now, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) and other members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee are spearheading a bill that would place cigarettes and other tobacco products under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration. Their proposal would allow the FDA to regulate the marketing of tobacco products to minors, strengthen health warnings on the dangerous effects of smoking and limit hazardous materials in cigarettes.
But prospects for enactment this year have dimmed in the wake of a dispute over just how much authority the FDA should acquire.
To ensure its passage, lawmakers had planned to link the bill with one that would provide financial relief to tobacco farmers by ending the government's 70-year-old tobacco subsidy. That measure, which is supported by senators from tobacco-growing states, would allow farmers to increase their tobacco production and compete on more even footing with foreign growers.
An unlikely coalition of interest groups-including anti-smoking advocates, tobacco growers and cigarette giant Philip Morris-have voiced support for tobacco regulation. But controversy over the specific language of the bill has stalled negotiations for months, making it unlikely that the bill will pass this year.
At issue is how much power the FDA should have to eliminate nicotine and other harmful ingredients from cigarettes. Manufacturers fear too much control could lead to a total ban on cigarettes.
Democrats, who say their goal is not to ban cigarettes, want a bill that would specifically allow the FDA to remove harmful ingredients from tobacco products. Republicans insist the current draft of the bill grants the FDA that authority, but Democrats and public health groups argue its "vague language" would provide loopholes for cigarette manufacturers to protest FDA decisions.
"It would severely restrict the authority of the FDA to require changes in tobacco products to make cigarettes less harmful and addictive," said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "We want to make sure that the language is tight and clear."
Philip Morris officials worry that too much FDA control would be the death of cigarettes.
"We don't think the FDA should be able to ban cigarettes entirely," said Mark Berlind, legislative counsel to Altria Group Inc., the Philip Morris' parent company. "The regulatory system is not supposed to be about prohibition of a product, but about reducing its harm."
If harmful ingredients are removed, Mr. Berlind wants confirmation that the resulting product is still "recognizable as a cigarette."
Willmore said the public-health advocates have additional concerns with the bill. They are disturbed that it does not give the FDA authority to monitor the health impacts of new, allegedly safer cigarette products, he said. They also contend that the bill would weaken existing FDA rules restricting the marketing of tobacco to children.
"We want to see the FDA enforce requirements such as checking for IDs, banning vending machine sales of cigarettes and restricting magazines from advertising [cigarettes] in color," he said.
Last week, tobacco negotiations came to a halt after Sen. Kennedy rejected a "best and final offer" from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the health committee. Sen. Kennedy said Sen. Gregg's bill provided the public with inadequate protection from unhealthy tobacco products.
"Unfortunately, the proposed legislation which Republicans put forth today falls far short of the strong FDA authority which is needed to effectively do the job," Sen. Kennedy said in a statement. "A weak bill is worse than no bill at all because it would give the public a false impression that their health was being protected."
Anti-smoking lobbyists agreed that the proposal "would result in weak legislation that does not protect the public health," according to a statement from the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "We have made concessions and proposed compromises in an attempt to resolve the outstanding issues, but this offer does not address the concerns that we have raised in any significant way."
Sen. Gregg said his proposal would give the FDA "significant new powers that will lead to a substantially strengthened public health policy."
He said it would grant the FDA greater authority over tobacco companies' advertising and promotion and require the FDA to monitor the effects of new tobacco products.
"After 10 years of making political statements and using children as political pawns rather than enacting true reform, I tried to make something work," Sen. Gregg said in a statement. "It is disappointing that yet again, the other side is going to walk away from [an]opportunity to pass legislation that will make a difference."
Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), who helped design the bill and is working with both sides to save it, was optimistic negotiations would continue.
"I believe the sides will be able to come together because it's in everyone's best interest to do so," Sen. DeWine said in a statement. "We are not that far apart. There is no reason why we cannot get a deal."
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Sen. Kennedy, said the senator would be willing to negotiate another draft of the bill if there was some "significant movement" toward increasing the FDA's authority over tobacco.
So far, there has been no such movement, he said. "We have seen no more signs of negotiations. Based on current drafts, it is tough to imagine that we can get a bill done before the end of this year."
Frank Pushes Housing Bill Through House
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - The House passed a bill on Tuesday that would promote construction of apartment buildings in Massachusetts and other states where housing prices have skyrocketed.
The bill would increase the size of loans that may be insured by the Federal Housing Administration, a critical source of financing for developers of affordable rental housing.
"Because of runaway housing costs in Massachusetts, the FHA loan limits have gotten too low and developers can't afford to build housing units for the amount the government will insure," said Kay Gibbs, spokeswoman for Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee. "This bill will provide the FHA with the ability to raise those limits in high-cost markets."
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored the bill with Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Calif.), said the bill was "very important" to his constituents.
"Two years ago, I had a meeting on the bill with the governor of California and I thought this should not be just a California bill, it should be for everybody, wherever the limits are too low," said Frank, the committee's senior Democrat.
Frank said he was "hopeful, not confident" that the Senate would approve the bill.
Joseph Kriesberg, president of the Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations, said the increase in loan capital would "be a big help" to New Bedford and other Southeastern Massachusetts towns that suffer from a shortage of affordable housing units.
"Getting low loan limits increased to more accurately reflect market prices here will be helpful," he said. "Lord knows we need all the help we can getá. High rents are eating up more and more of paychecks and are a drag on the economy. It is critical that more housing be built."
The Community Economic Development Center of Eastern Massachusetts, located in downtown New Bedford, recently completed a study of affordable housing issues in New Bedford. The report concluded that housing problems are linked to high unemployment, low wages and rising rents.
New Bedford's per capita income of $15, 602 is one of the lowest in the state, according to CEDC director Corinn Williams. Over the last two years, apartment rents have been increasing while wages have remained the same, she said.
"It's a real crisis down here," she said. "If people who are renting lose a housing subsidy, get an increase in rent or something happens to their job, there is a real risk for homelessness."
The outlook for first-time homebuyers in New Bedford isn't any better.
Williams said buyers would need an annual income of at least $50,000 to be able to afford an "average home," which she estimated would cost $164,000.
In New Bedford, where 75 percent of households earn less than $49,000 a year, only two out of 10 families can afford to purchase their own home, she said.
Arlene McNamee, executive director of Catholic Social Services in Fall River, agreed that the House bill would help create more housing, but that many people still wouldn't be able to afford it. She said lawmakers should also increase rent subsidies, raise the minimum wage and take other steps to make housing more accessible to lower-income people.
"While creating this bill, [Rep. Frank] needs to remember his responsibility to the poor, not just the middle class," she said. "We need a playing field that everyone can enjoy."
Rep. Frank, who said he is working hard to raise wages, believes housing decisions should be kept independent of pay increases.
"Besides," he said. "It is hard to raise average wages through a bill."
Heading South: Massachusetts Political Insider Chooses Edwards Over Kerry
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - Gerry Kavanaugh knows politics. And he knows Massachusetts.
The Dartmouth native has worked as chief of staff to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and as a policy director at the Democratic National Committee. He ran Kennedy's last two re-election campaigns. He has organized city council and mayoral campaigns in Quincy, Salem and Boston.
So when it came time to choose sides in the current presidential race, it would seem natural for Mr. Kavanaugh to sign onto the campaign of another Democrat from the Bay State, Sen. John F. Kerry. Instead, Mr. Kavanaugh is working as a senior policy adviser to John Edwards, a Democratic senator from North Carolina.
He picked the candidate he thought had the best chance to unseat President Bush.
"If we want to win the presidency, we need to win Southern states," Mr. Kavanaugh explained in an interview last week. "And I think we need a Southern candidate to do that."
Mr. Kavanaugh, 49, also said he has a personal relationship with Edwards, and so chose him early this year over Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, the only other Southern Democratic candidate in the race until retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas entered the fray last month.
"I have known Edwards since we worked together in the Senate and decided to coalesce behind him because I thought he could win Southern states," Mr. Kavanaugh said. "At the time, the only other senator that could do that was Graham, but I didn't think he was a strong enough candidate."
Edwards' press secretary, Jennifer Palmieri, who also worked with Mr. Kavanaugh at the Democratic National Committee, said he was not rejecting Sen. Kerry so much as sustaining his "special bond" with Sen. Edwards.
"They share the same sort of blue-collar upbringing and a lot of the same values," Palmieri said. "Their parents worked hard and wanted a better life for their children. They feel a real kinship."
Sen. Edwards, who on the campaign trail promotes his working-class roots - his father was a mill worker - entered the Senate a millionaire trial lawyer.
Chris Black, spokeswoman for Sen. Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said Mr. Kavanaugh also might have been applying the basic law of supply and demand.
"Anyone who gets a seasoned political operative is lucky. Kerry has a lot. We grow them here, so it's not surprising that some would end up working for candidates from other states," said Ms. Black, a summer resident of Marion who for years covered Sen. Kennedy as a reporter for the Boston Globe.
Kelley Benander, a spokeswoman for Sen. Kerry, agreed: "Massachusetts is a big state with hundreds of political operatives, many of whom signed up with our campaign and many who have not."
Bristol County District Attorney Paul Walsh, who grew up playing basketball with Mr. Kavanaugh in Buttonwood Park, said joining Edwards' campaign is merely a reflection of his friend's free-thinking personality.
"You would think logically being a Mass guy he'd go with Edwards, but Gerry is a tough guy, and he makes very independent calls," Mr. Walsh said. "He is strong in his opinions."
He might be campaigning for a Southerner, but Mr. Kavanaugh has lost neither his Boston accent nor his Northern roots.
The walls of his Washington office are decorated with New England mementos, including a large New Bedford map, colored prints of Boston Harbor and a black and white photograph of his junior high school all-star basketball team crowded around Celtics' star Bob Cousy.
His mother recently passed away, but the blue-eyed, white-haired Mr. Kavanaugh still returns to Dartmouth to visit some of his six brothers and sisters. He said he is most impressed by the real estate growth that has taken place since he left the New Bedford area in 1972 to attend Lafayette College.
City-planning issues fascinated Mr. Kavanaugh as a child. His father, who owned a small furniture store on Union St., talked often at the dinner table about the changing business district.
"One of the big, big, big decisions was whether to close off Main St. and make it into a pedestrian mall," he said. "They did that and it had a dramatic effect on my father's business."
After earning a master's degree in urban planning at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978, Mr. Kavanaugh worked as a city planner in Quincy and Salem. But he soon gravitated toward politics. He described the transition as a matter of necessity.
"I realized that in order to get things done, you had to be as much a part of the political process as a part of the policy process," he said. "That's how I got involved in politics and became very active in campaigns and elections."
Following his 1994 campaign, Sen. Kennedy asked Mr. Kavanaugh to be his chief economic adviser. Three years later, Mr. Kavanaugh became the senator's chief of staff, a job he said was "all consuming but incredibly rewarding."
"Kennedy is really a national figure and the head of a huge and well-known family. So his chief of staff has to have impeccable judgment," Ms. Black said. "Besides public policy, you need to look out for the political family and the state. It's an enormously difficult jobáAfter you've done that you can do anything."
For some, the next step might have been a run for political office. But Mr. Kavanaugh said he never thought about it. "I guess it's because I like my privacy," he said.
In 2001, Mr. Kavanaugh left Sen. Kennedy's office to work at the DNC, a move spurred by former Vice President Al Gore's defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Gore, who is from Tennessee, lost most Southern states.
"After the election, I saw that we, meaning the Democrats, really had to do lots of different things in order to stay competitive, so I went over to the DNC to try to affect the way some of that is done," Mr. Kavanaugh said.
Mr. Kavanaugh worked long hours at the DNC in his glass-enclosed office, affectionately named the "fish bowl."
He concentrated on three areas that he thought would make Democrats more competitive: increasing the number of small donors, getting Democrats to the polls and attracting swing voters.
"Gerry was the hardest worker in the campaign," said Peter O'Keefe, senior adviser to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. "That kind of dedication, coupled with keen political skills and his relationships, will make him a tremendous asset to the Edwards campaign."
Mr. Kavanaugh describes his work style as "never-ending."
"I try to be the earliest guy into work and the last guy out," he said. Mr. Kavanaugh, who is single, said he generally works from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
He said he also prefers to stay out of the limelight, an unusual trait in the capital.
"There are not many people like Gerry in politics. Lots of people are out to promote themselves, but he couldn't be more private and old-schoolá.He is a wonderful soul and a nice person to be around," Ms. Palmieri said. She added that Mr. Kavanaugh relates well to people both politically and personally: "That is why he is so good at labor and union politics."
During his time with Sen. Kennedy, Mr. Kavanaugh developed deep ties to organized labor -- one of the reasons Sen. Edwards asked him to join his campaign in mid-2002.
"At the DNC, Gerry had exposure to business, labor, environmental, nonprofit, aging, and health groups. He put all those interests together and was a coalition-builder," Ms. Palmieri said. "His relationships from those days are important to us, they are important to Sen. Edwards."
Sen. Edwards' invitation to work on the campaign didn't surprise Mr. Kavanaugh. He already had been working for two years to raise money for Edwards' 2004 senatorial campaign, which the senator canceled last month in order to devote all his time to his presidential campaign.
Mr. Kavanaugh rejected theories that Sen. Edwards, who is trailing several competitors in the polls, dropped out of the Senate race in order to position himself for the vice-presidential nomination.
"Those who know John Edwards know he is doing this to become President, not Vice President," Mr. Kavanaugh said. "He wants to focus all his attention on this campaign, and did that so he could get a good Democratic candidate from North Carolina to run for that [Senate] seat."
Securing Democratic seats in the closely divided Senate is very important to Mr. Kavanaugh, who said he fears losing ground to Republicans. In congressional elections last year, Democrats lost control of the Senate. But the party still has enough members to filibuster and block GOP legislation, a power Mr. Kavanaugh would like to preserve.
"If we win the presidency, we could also win some Senate seats," he said.
Since joining the Edwards campaign in January, Mr. Kavanaugh has been wooing labor unions, particularly the AFL-CIO; National Education Association; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the Service Employees International Union.
"I've tried to make sure those unions understand what John Edwards is about and work to push them to endorse him," Mr. Kavanaugh said. "The other thing I do is coordinate policies of labor unions with Edwards' policies to make certain they are consistent."
Though based in Washington, Mr. Kavanaugh spends much of his time on the road with Sen. Edwards or at the campaign's headquarters in Raleigh, N.C.
He said he is not discouraged by recent reports that show fundraising for the senator has declined dramatically since the first quarter, when he raised $7.4 million. Sen. Edwards' aides have estimated he raised about $3 million during the third quarter.
"We planned it that way," Mr. Kavanaugh said. "We wanted to make sure we had enough to compete until February so we went out in first six months and raised more than everyone else. We will find out in a couple of months if we were right."
Mr. Kavanaugh conceded that Gen. Clark "totally shook everyone up" by joining the race in mid-September, but said Mr. Clark's campaign "has not really formed yet." The former NATO commander was the 10th Democrat to enter the race.
Still, the entrance of another southerner could shake up Mr. Kavanaugh's strategy to win the South.
"The litmus test will be who is most capable of beating Bush and the most capable of winning Southern states. We don't know how Clark will do, but when you look at the other nine and look at who could win red states -- Republican states that Bush won in 2000 -- we know that we can compete in those states just because of where we come from," Mr. Kavanaugh said. "I think the other candidates lack the ability to do that."
Although Sen. Edwards lags behind other Democrats in most key polls, Mr. Kavanaugh said he was pleased that a recent poll showed the senator leading the pack in his native South Carolina, the first Southern state to vote in a primary.
"It goes back to what I was saying about who can win Southern states," Mr. Kavanaugh said.
Though his strategy is to carry the South - and Sen. Kerry is widely expected to win Massachusetts - Mr. Kavanaugh said Sen. Edwards should appeal to New Bedford voters for three reasons: he comes from a working-class background; he grew up in the South during the Civil Rights movement; and he is a strong supporter of civil liberties.
Massachusetts Do-Not-Call Registry Unaffected By Federal Court Ruling
by Becky Evans
WASHINGTON - More than one million Massachusetts residents' phone numbers will remain off-limits to telemarketers despite a federal judge's ruling in Oklahoma City Tuesday that the Federal Trade Commission did not have authority to establish a national do-not-call registry, scheduled to go into effect on Oct. 1.
Even as Congress rushed to pass legislation on Thursday to override the court's decision, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs reassured residents that the ruling would have no impact on the state's do-not-call program, which allows consumers to register their phone numbers to prohibit unsolicited calls from telemarketers.
"The long and short of it is that there will be no effect on the Massachusetts do-not-call program," said Consumer Affairs spokeswoman Lizzie Lewis. "It will continue to operate in the same way regardless of the federal program."
State Rep. Bill Straus (D-Mattapoisett) sponsored Massachusetts' original do-not-call bill, which was signed into law Jan. 1. Since then, 1.6 million residents have registered by phone or on the Web for the "wildly popular" program, Lewis said.
"I am just overwhelmed by the amount of people who come up to me, write me letters and even call to say how grateful they are to be able to protect the privacy of their home," Straus said. "Bar none, it is the single most popular thing that people tell me I have ever done as a representative."
Days after the do-not-call registry became effective on April 1, Straus said the number of telemarketing calls to his home "fell off the cliff, essentially disappearing."
"We still get a few calls," he said. "But the numbers have so diminished that it accomplished just what we hoped it wouldáNow, every time you help your kids with their homework or try to eat dinner you are not interrupted by a phone call from someone trying to sell you something that you are not interested in buying."
Straus said residents appreciate the restoration of "peace at home, where you expect to be in control of what you see and hear."
Congress moved swiftly Thursday to make sure the national do-not-call list would be up and running Oct. 1 as planned. The House voted, 412-8, and the Senate voted, 95-0, for a bill granting the FTC specific authority to establish the list, which already has more than 50 million registered phone numbers. According to the legislation, telemarketers that call any of the numbers on the list risk fines of up to $11,000.
"I've heard from a couple of businesses in Massachusetts, Realtors in particular, who feel the federal regulation may go too far, but in general I think it is an important thing to do," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who voted for the bill.
Straus said the purpose of the federal registry was to allow people in states that do not have their own do-not-call lists to have the same privacy protections as Massachusetts residents.
"When the federal rules go into effect, they will act as an extra Band-Aid or insurance for Massachusetts residents," he said, noting that consumers who are registered in Massachusetts will automatically be placed on the national list.
Lewis called the federal court's ruling a "hiccup" that was "too important an issue for the federal government not to address.
"I believe it will get figured out and the [national registry] will be great for Massachusetts consumers because they will have the added protection of the federal government."
