Category: Courtney Paquette
Breast Cancer Research Funding Fails
WASHINGTON 12/9/04-In October, Congress passed legislation that lit the St. Louis Arch pink in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. The resolution had two sponsors in the Senate and four in the House and was signed into law on Oct.20.
The move elicited an unexpected response from some breast cancer research advocates.
“Since Oct. 20, 3,069 women have died of breast cancer,” New Hampshire Breast Cancer Coalition President Nancy Ryan said last month. “Pink lights didn’t save any of them.”
Congress appropriated more than $4 billion last month for the National Cancer Institute’s efforts to save people from various forms of the disease. But that spending did not include funding for a program breast cancer research advocates had been pushing for two years and that had strong support in the House and Senate. Congress did not pass the bill specifically authorizing and appropriating $30 million over the next five years to create eight centers that would study the link between breast cancer and the environment. The bill had 62 sponsors in the Senate and 210 in the House and has been introduced three times in six years.
Hundreds of studies have explored the links between breast cancer and the environment. Many have ruled out a connection between certain chemicals and breast cancer, but researchers, and those who work with patients, said the need for additional funding and research persists.
“A lot of patients, especially the younger women in their 30s, 40s and 50s, the first thing they say is, ‘I eat well. I don’t smoke. It’s got to be the environment,’” said Elizabeth Hale Campoli, a registered nurse and program director at the Breast Care Center in Nashua. “It kind of gets them a little angry. They feel like they’ve done everything right.”
The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which would establish and fund eight research centers under the direction of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the National Institutes of Health, has died in committee in the three consecutive sessions since Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) introduced it in 1999. In November, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic leader-designate, “hot-lined” the bill, meaning it bypassed committee and was brought to the Senate floor for a vote that required the Senate’s unanimous consent. But opposition from the Republican side prevented its passage.
According to both a Chafee spokesman and breast cancer research advocates who lobbied for the bill, Sen. Judd Gregg blocked it in the committee he chaired. They said that instead, he favored allowing the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute to decide how to spend federal cancer research funds. It was a change that the bill’s advocates found unacceptable.
When asked after a recent Senate vote why he opposed the legislation, Gregg said, “I’m not going to comment on that.”
Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, which helped develop the legislation, said Gregg has “consistently blocked enactment.even though a bipartisan majority of the Senate supported the bill.”
Both Ryan and Hale Campoli also said their requests to meet with Gregg personally on trips to Washington to discuss the bill have been declined for two years in a row.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) supported the bill and Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) supported the House version.
“We were extremely disappointed that the bill did not move,” said Ryan, who, with other members of the New Hampshire coalition, canvassed Capitol Hill during the November lame-duck session to garner support for the bill.
Ryan has been “living with breast cancer,” as she puts it, since 1991. Her work at the New Hampshire coalition has been a full-time, unpaid job since she was diagnosed at the age of 41.
Though the numbers have decreased, New Hampshire breast cancer incidence rates are about eight percent higher than the national average and the death rate is slightly higher, according to National Cancer Institute data from 2001, the most recent year available. In that year, 931 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 186 women died from the disease.
Previous and current studies on breast cancer and the environment have been somewhat inconclusive, researchers say, because of the difficulty of measuring the effects of environmental factors.
The largest and most expensive epidemiological study supported by the National Cancer Institute was the Long Island Breast Cancer Study, in a region where breast cancer incidence rates were higher than in other parts of the country. The study compared chemical levels in blood samples of women with breast cancer to those without the disease.
Parts of this study are still under way, but findings released in 2002 showed that there was no correlation between PCBs, including DDT, and increased instances of breast cancer.
“It sounds like a high-possibility prospect, but it hasn’t panned out in direct research,” said Dr. Linda Titus Ernstoff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, who reviewed the study and thousands of others on the manufactured chemical. “But it could be that we can’t measure it well in the blood because it has decreased over time. We can’t really take it off the suspect list.”
But a chemical known as PAH that is found in grilled foods, engine exhaust and cigarette smoke, did show some effect.
“That finding was not clear-cut to interpret,” said Dr. Deborah Winn of the National Cancer Institute, “But the investigators saw something with PAH.” She added: “It’s always hard to look at the environment and breast cancer. Exposures may have taken place in the past, and it may be hard to measure these exposures.”
Because measuring chemical levels in adults has sometimes produced inconclusive results, the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences created four centers in 2002 to follow 1,800 six- and seven-year-old girls through puberty to see whether exposures to environmental agents affect speed of development.
The centers, in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, San Francisco and East Lansing, Mich, will also expose animals to chemical agents to see if they affect mammary gland development. Breast cancer research advocates involved in the study will explain the findings to the communities. The Lowey-Chafee bill did not appropriate money for these four centers.
“When we put [the research] together.we can really establish some kind of public policy,” said Dr. Jose Russo, lead investigator at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, one of the four centers.
Russo and his counterparts at the other centers said that this study is extensive and unlike any that has taken place. But they added that their research is limited by funding and that additional questions will need to be answered.
“Four centers will scratch the surface about what we need to know about how the environment affects breast cancer,” said Dr. Sue Heffelfinger, the lead investigator at the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Robert Hiatt, lead investigator at the University of California, agreed and said that with additional funding, the centers could expand the number of girls studied, get more details on their family lives and physical activity and could involve the community more.
“We’re likely to uncover more questions, and it would be good to have different centers in different parts of the country,” Hiatt said.
For now, early detection remains the best option for controlling breast cancer. The federally funded initiative that New Hampshire calls “Let No Woman Be Overlooked” began in 1997 under this assumption. The program provides free mammograms, pap smears and breast exams to low-income women. According to program coordinator Becky Bukowski, the program exceeded its goal of providing services for more than 3,000 women last year.
“Our ultimate goal is to reduce morbidity and mortality and we do that by enrolling people who wouldn’t necessarily go for screening and be screened at an early age,” Bukowski said.
The ultimate goal for Ryan, Hale Campoli and other advocates from New Hampshire and across the country who have worked on the bill is to end breast cancer, and they said they think the Lowey-Chafee breast cancer bill is a step in that direction. Rep. Lowey’s spokeswoman, Julie Edwards, said Lowey would reintroduce the bill next session. According to Hourahan, Chafee had not made a decision yet.
“We’re fighting to end this for all women,” Ryan said. “Scientists want to make breast cancer a chronic disease. I disagree. Our goals need to be to learn what is causing so much breast cancer and what we can do to prevent it.”
###
Bush Bans Internet Access Fees
WASHINGTON 12/3/04-President George W. Bush signed a bill Friday banning taxes on Internet access fees, but a grandfather clause in the bill allows New Hampshire to continue for two years to tax access fees on high-speed DSL lines.
The clause allows states that taxed Internet access fees, including high-speed Internet access fees, prior to an Internet access fee tax ban enacted in 1998 and renewed in October 2001 to continue doing so.
New Hampshire taxes DSL, or high speed Internet, at a rate of 7 percent under the Communications Services Tax, which dubs DSL a two-way communication service provider. DSL lines are digital internet connections provided by telephone companies to their local subscribers that carry information at high-speeds. The new bill, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), bans taxation on all access fees for three years and clarifies the definition of Internet access to include DSL, dial-up, cable modem and wireless service. According to a Wyden press release, it also bans double taxation, by two or more states, of a product or service bought over the Internet and discriminatory taxes that treat Internet purchases differently from other purchases, for another three years.
The legislation does not ban taxes on voice over Internet protocol, since the Federal Communications Commission recently ruled that it is an Internet service that is not subject to state public utility regulation.
Voice over Internet protocol is using a computer network to make a telephone call.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), who helped draft the bill, said the ban provides small businesses around the country the certainty they need to expand their information networks.
"The Internet provides great leverage for small firms. It enables small firms or entrepreneurs to access the national market and the international market," Sununu said.
He also said it would spur the development of new products and services that can be purchased through the Internet.
Sununu said in a press release that he supports a permanent ban on taxation of Internet access fees and that the Internet should not be a source of revenue for states.
It is uncertain how many states currently tax Internet access fees. But according to Michael Mazerov of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin tax Internet access fees in some way. Mazerov cited an Oct. 30, 2003 letter from the Congressional Budget Office as the source of this information.
###
Bass Takes the Reigns of Tuesday Group
WASHINGTON, 11/22/04--The congressmen strolled into the press gallery and assembled in front of a sign that read "Vox Centrum," meaning "voice of the center." They glanced at one another and wondered aloud whether they should wait to begin the conference they had called to talk about the new leadership of their group of moderate Republicans until one more colleague showed up.
"Is that it, four of you?," said one of the reporters, laughing.
Quiet chuckles spread through the small crowd gathered to hear them last week.
"Plus 31," said Rep. Charles Bass, flashing a wry smile.
These 35 Republican House members are known as the Tuesday Group, moderate Republicans that meet once a week over pizza or sandwiches in the basement of the Capitol to hammer out their agenda, Bass and Mark Kirk (IL), plan to make the most of their numbers in order to make their voices, and what they call the voice of mainstream America, not only heard, but heeded.
In a GOP- dominated House, the 35 votes could influence legislation to the advantage of the Democrats, or could be garnered by conservative Republicans for a greater majority.
As the new co-chairs of the group, Bass and Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., plan to make the most of their voices, and what they think are the voices of mainstream America, not only heard, but heeded.
"We're not just going to try to pick issues that we think conservatives are going to like," said Bass. "We're going to develop an agenda that our members want and there's consensus for to push. We're going to try to stick together as a group and have some real results to show at the end of the session."
Or, as Kirk put it, "We're going to underpromise and overdeliver."
The Tuesday Group began in the late 1970's under the title of the "Tuesday lunch bunch." At first, the group included members of the Senate as well as the House. Past and long-time co-chair Mike Castle, R-Del., said he remembers taking his brown bag lunch to Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's office to talk with a few others about the agenda for the moderates.
Members no longer have to pack their own lunches, and the group now only includes Houses members (a separate group known as the Republican Main Street Partnership includes moderate House and Senate members). But the focus on fiscal matters has remained constant-and the agenda in past years has grown to include the environment, science and defense.
Bass, according to his legislative director Tad Furtado, hopes the group's focus this session to be fiscal, namely, changing the rules of the budget to discourage new spending by requiring more than a 50 percent majority for approval of new spending.
Furtado also said Bass wants the group to take a more active approach to getting things done.
"What we don't want to do is just build a group that is always able to say no, we want to build a group that is able to say yes and pass something," said Furtado. "We've always been a defensive blocking group."
Bass said that though he didn't intend to go out and solicit the support of Democrats, the Tuesday Group agenda and priorities would attract their support.
"I have little doubt (our agenda) will attract the support of like-minded Democrats," said Bass.
Furtado said working in a bi-partisan manner has helped moderates offset a much larger number of ideologically driven, more conservative members, especially on energy policy.
Castle said Bass's personality helps him in this regard.
"He's liked beyond our group," said Castle. "You want somebody there who can talk to the leadership and talk to others."
This session, Bass will try to increase this influence by interviewing each member of the Tuesday Group to find out what he or she would like to focus on.
"Votes count. And what we will do that we have not done in the past is plan for the major issues, to find out.how our members feel about it and whether or not we're willing to stick together as a group," said Bass.
But unlike the conservative Republican Study Group or the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, the Tuesday Group does not stick together on every issue. Members readily admit that this is not what the group was created for.
"If you ask any of the four of us different questions, you'll get different answers, because we're not ideologically based in always having the same answer," said Castle at the conference. In addition to Castle and the two chairs, the fourth member to appear was Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
Furtado said the members of Tuesday Group disagree on a number of "hot button" issues, such as gun and abortion rights.
Perhaps that is why it is so difficult to identify the moderate Republicans, and why it is perhaps so hard for them to identify themselves.
Unlike the Study Group or Blue Dogs, the Tuesday Group does not make a list of their members public. It has no Web site, and even the some of the group's members are reluctant to label themselves "moderate."
For instance, though he attends meetings, Rep. Jeb Bradley calls himself "loosely affiliated" with the Tuesday Group. He said there was no stigma attached to being a moderate Republican and said he prefers the focus to be on his voting record, not labels.
"I wanted to participate in the group and.learn from the perspective of more senior members of Congress, who were willing to take me under their wing," said Bradley of the group, "But I'm not so sure labels are always a good thing. I really focus on policy, not labels."
Rep. Mike Michaud, a member of the moderate Blue Dogs, said he didn't think there was a stigma attached to being a moderate Republican, but that they were under different pressures than moderate democrats.
"Clearly, there's a lot of pressure on the Republican side to toe the party line," said Michaud. "You've got a Republican president, a Republican Senate, a Republican House, it makes it more difficult for them to stray."
Bass said he and Kirk have already taken steps to make the group more public, such as developing the new "vox centrum" logo. He said they might develop a Web site in conjunction with the Republican Main Street Partnership.
Whether or not their influence is publicly known, members agree that the weekly meetings are a place for them to figure out their stances on a number of issues and talk honestly amongst friends in an environment that they feel comfortable in, absent the pressures of the press, which has never been allowed at the lunches.
"The best thing about the Tuesday Group is that one hour a week we're together.I learn more about what's happening in Congress and develop more of my thinking there than I do in anything I do in the entire week," said Castle.
Furtado agreed.
"Basically it's an environment where people can get work done," Furtado said. "There's nothing to be gained by standing out and banging your shoe on the table."
###
Delegation Frowns on National Sales Tax
WASHINGTON 11/19/04- Replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax doesn't sit well with some members of the New Hampshire delegation, but most think simplifying the tax code is necessary.
"It's really a bad idea whose time has not come," said Sen. Judd Gregg, who will chair the Budget Committee in January. "We don't need a new major engine of revenue."
President George Bush has said overhauling the tax code will be one of his major priorities in the next four years. An August campaign appearance in which Bush entertained the idea of replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax sparked a buzz about the idea.
Sen. John Sununu said that reforming the tax code was necessary, but said a national sales tax wash highly unlikely to get through committee, much less make it to the House or Senate floor.
"We need a flatter, fairer income tax that provides a generous exemption for families and eliminates the complex maze of loopholes and deductions that frustrates most taxpayers," Sununu said in a written statement.
Rep. Charles Bass has similar feelings about the tax, according to spokeswoman Margo Shideler.
"Although the Congressman supports reforming our current tax system to make it fairer, flatter and easier to understand, he has serious concerns that a national sales tax would undermine the New Hampshire advantage that comes from not having a state sales tax," Shideler said.
Rep. Jeb Bradley said that it was too early to say what would work best- a national sales tax, a flat tax or simplifying the tax code- but said simplifying the tax code was necessary.
"Our tax code is really pretty cumbersome and complicated," Bradley said. "At a minimum we have to figure out a way to simplify our tax code, so that compliance costs are easier to deal with."
Bradley said there are benefits and downsides to a national sales tax.
"People will argue that a consumption tax is more transparent. You know what you're paying, when you're paying. If you object to the tax you don't have to consume that good or service. So it's a little bit more voluntary in that regard."
"On the other hand, there are those who do believe that it more adversely affects people at the lower end of the economic spectrum," Bradley said.
Chris Edwards, a scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, agreed that it was more transparent, but there are problems with the details of the tax.
"If you make $50,000 on income, you'll see $50,000 on pay stub. But when you went to the store prices would be higher and you'd pay the tax," Edwards said. "And questions of whether you could do the rate that high, what possible rate would be..do you tax everything, do you exempt healthcare, do you exempt food?"
Both Edwards and Bruce Bartlett, an economist at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a public policy research institute in Washington, said that the tax would have to be about 30 percent.
Edwards said that in 1990s the most public plan would have replaced the individual and corporate income tax with a 15 percent sales tax. He said with the latest proposals the rate would have to be 30 percent.
Bartlett said the tax may even have to be higher and that some estimates place it at 50 percent.
"It's just utterly, utterly impractical," Bartlett said. "All the experiences of foreign countries tell us that you can't collect rates much above 10 percent."
Edwards said he did not think Bush would impose a national sales tax.
"It's certainly the most radical proposal.. He might not want to be as radical as a sales tax," Edwards said.
###
Bass Requests Hearings for Gift Card Legislation
WASHINGTON 11/18/04-Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., requested a hearing Wednesday to work on federal legislation that would ban fees and expiration dates on bank-affiliated gift cards.
Although state law is used to regulate store-specific gift certificates, Bass said he believes there is a need for the federal government to address the issues presented by bank-affiliated gift cards, such as the Simon Visa Gift Card. " Our role is to ensure that companies are unable to sidestep laws enacted by states such as New Hampshire," Bass said in a press release. "This conflict between state and federal law illustrates a need for the federal government to address the consumer's rights when purchasing gift cards affiliated with national banks." Bass requested the hearing by the Energy and Commerce Committee of which he is a member.
If legislation is introduced and passed, it would nullify Simon Property Group's claim that its cards are regulated under federal law and not subject to state law. New Hampshire's law prohibits expiration dates on store-specific gift certificates as well as service charges and administrative charges that reduce the value of the certificate. The state has brought a suit against Simon Property Group Inc, charging that its card policies violate state law.
Shelia Atkins of the Better Business Bureau said she could not comment on whether federal legislation regarding gift cards is needed, but said consumers need to be do research on bank-issued cards.
"It's in the consumer's best interest to inquire about these gift cards. Consumers need to know if there's an expiration date. I think up until a year ago, consumers didn't know that gift cards expired," Atkins said.
According to a survey by the National Retail Federation, the average consumer will spend 11.5 percent of his holiday budget on gift cards and 74.3 percent of consumers will purchase a gift card during the holidays.
Gregg WIll Chair Budget Committee
WASHINGTON 11/10/04- Senator Judd Gregg announced Wednesday afternoon that he will be the chairman of the influential Senate Budget Committee next session, a position that gives him jurisdiction over drafting and monitoring Congress' annual budget plan.
Gregg gives up the chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and replaces Budget chairman Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who did not seek reelection. Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) will replace Gregg as chairman of the Health Committee. Gregg, who will remain a member of the health panel, is also on the Appropriations Committee.
"It's one of the pressure points, one of the significant pressure points, in the Congress where you can really get a handle on spending and where you can have an impact," Gregg said of the Budget Committee chairmanship.
Gregg said President George Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) asked him to take the position and that the primary reason he chose to change committee leadership roles was his concern for reining in the deficit and reforming entitlement programs.
Gregg said he wanted to put a budget in place that would cut the deficit in half within four years and establish mechanisms that would discipline Congress on fiscal policy, such as pay-as-you-go rules and caps.
"As we look into the future and ask what are the biggest public policy issues beyond fighting terrorism, [they are] getting the deficit under control and addressing the demographic tidal wave that is heading for us," Gregg said.
Gregg stressed that he would seek a bipartisan approach to drawing up a budget, saying he would go in "with a blank piece of paper."
Dante Scala, a political science professor at St. Anselm College, said he thought Gregg was suited for the position.
"He certainly brings to the table a reputation for fiscal constraint," Scala said. "He went against the President in his first term occasionally, because he felt like there were certain things that were budget busters."
Gregg was one of only seven Republican senators who voted against Medicare prescription drug legislation signed into law last December, saying that the long-term financial burdens outweighed the immediate benefits.
But in spite of their rare occasional differences, John Fortier, an expert on Congress at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, Gregg's close relationship with Bush would work to both their advantages.
"The Budget Committee is the beginning of the process ,and to the extent that [Gregg is] close to the President. there is an advantage with having coordination in advance," Fortier said.
The President is supposed to submit his budget for the next fiscal year to Congress by the first Monday in February, and the Budget Committees in the House and Senate are responsible for drafting an annual budget plan.
Gregg said he would apply New Hampshire principles in this task.
"You live within your means," he said, "and you do it without raising taxes."
###
Delegation Sets Priorities for 109th Congress
WASHINGTON 11/4/04- Protecting the country against terrorism and reforming Social Security will top the agendas of members of the all-Republican New Hampshire delegation when the 109 th Congress convenes in January.
With a solid grip on the House, where Republicans picked up three seats, and reinforced sway in the Senate, where the GOP picked up four seats, accomplishing these goals should be easier than last session, according to delegation members.
Sen. Judd Gregg, who identified protecting the country against terrorists as his number one concern, said he would like to advance the BioShield II bill, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Ct.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The bill supplements legislation signed in July which authorized $5.6 billion over the next 10 years for stockpiling of vaccines and drugs to fight bioterror agents, such as anthrax.
Gregg also said he expected a prescription drug re-importation proposal "very quickly." He introduced one in June, but the bill was buried in committee. Rep. Jeb Bradley introduced a similar bill in the House in July, with the same result. Bradley said that passing the legislation was his top priority this session, along with winning the war on terror.
Both Gregg and Sen. John Sununu said overhauling Social Security is a priority. Both senators have introduced legislation that would create personal retirement accounts to supplement Social Security. Sununu said President Bush, who said Social Security reform was a priority in his news conference Thursday, would take these proposals into account in developing his own plan.
"My guess is the president will look at the legislation that's out there, work with senators like me and Sen. Gregg that have introduced legislation and try to develop a legislative proposal with his own imprint," Sununu said.
Another top priority of Sununu's is passage of the Jumpstart Broadband Act, which would overhaul telecommunications laws to boost wireless broadband Internet access. Sununu said that if the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, where the bill has been sitting, worked at a good pace, it could be marking up the bill next fall.
Telecommunications reform is also a top priority of Rep. Charles Bass. He also said he would focus on a bill he introduced in October that would help develop other sources of renewable energy. The legislation, co-sponsored by Bradley, stalled in the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Some members of the delegation will seek new committee assignments in fulfilling their goals.
Gregg said that the chairmanship of the Budget Committee was a "distinct possibility" and that he had a lot of interest in that area. While he has also been mentioned as a possible Bush cabinet choice, Gregg said there were not too many positions in which he was interested.
Bass, along with Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), are the new co-chairmen of the Tuesday Group, 35 moderate Republicans who meet each week to define agendas and strategy. Bass said this would take up a lot more of his time than in previous years.
Sununu said he didn't expect to join any more committees, as he is a member of five already and chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism. Bradley said he was still thinking about where he might move, but wanted to remain on the Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees.
But even with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, fulfilling these agendas could be difficult, according to Tripp Baird, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"On paper [it's] great, but in reality, if the majority leader cannot get 60 [votes] on any major issue.Democrats can still bottle things up, and I expect they will," Baird said.
But the New Hampshire members were optimistic about the gains in the Senate and confident that they could reach across the aisle to pass legislation that has stalled this session.
"I'm willing to hold out the olive branch and develop some common ground," Bass said.
###
[Sidebar] PACs Can Give Above Maximum in Some Circumstances
WASHINGTON 10/21/04-Federal campaign finance laws limit political action committee contributions to $5,000 per election for a maximum of $10,000 per election cycle - most of the time.According to George Smaragdis, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, the law allows PACs to give above that maximum in the current election cycle in order to help pay a candidate's debt in a previous cycle, if the PACs had not given the maximum for that previous election.
For example, BAE Systems North America PAC gave $15,000 to Rep. Jeb Bradley this election cycle, $5,000 above the maximum. But because the PAC gave Bradley only $5,000 for the 2000 election, it can donate the additional $5,000 allowed under the law to help pay down Bradley's debt.
Doug Weber of the Center for Responsive Politics said it was not uncommon for freshman, like Bradley, who did not receive the maximum allowed the previous election, to receive debt payments from PACs the next cycle.
Weber said it is clear from a candidate's debt records whether or not he is using the additional money to pay down the debt.
Steven Weiss, a spokesman for the center, said the aim of the debt donation is to make a favorable impression on the candidate.
"Donors don't care much about where their contributions are used," Weiss said. "PACs are going to give as much as they can to lawmakers on important committees."
PAC Contributions Give Incumbents Big Advantage
WASHINGTON 10/21/04-New Hampshire's House incumbents have derived a financial advantage in their reelection campaigns from political action committee contributions, according to Federal Election Commission reports.
Through Sept. 30, Rep. Jeb Bradley received $427,872 from PACs, while his Democratic challenger Justin Nadeau received $48,273. Rep. Charles Bass received $270,551 and Democratic challenger Paul Hodes received $30,550.
Political action committees are organized to raise and spend money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. A political action committee for a company, for example, allows employees to pool contributions to be distributed by the committee.
A PAC can give up to $5,000 per election to a candidate, for a maximum of $10,000 for the primary and general elections. Individual contributions are limited to $4,000 a year per candidate, but individuals may give as much as $5,000 a year to PACs.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that analyzes campaign finance data, the defense industry is the top contributor to Bradley's campaign (counting PACs and industry employees). For Bass, the top contributors are in the defense, computer, insurance and automotive industries.
Several business PACs gave the maximum $10,000 to Bass and Bradley.
According to the center, BAE Systems North America Inc., one of the largest employers in New Hampshire and a top supplier to the Defense Department, topped the donor lists for both Bass and Bradley. The company's PAC gave the maximum $10,000 to this year's campaign, and its employees and their family members raised that total to more than $24,650 to Bradley and $12,750 to Bass, according to the center.
The BAE PAC also gave another $5,000 to Bradley this year to help him retire his debt from the 2002 election. ( See sidebar .)
John Measell, a spokesman for the BAE PAC, said the committee gives money to candidates based on where the company has plants and on whether the incumbent is a member of a committee related to defense.
Bradley is on the Armed Services Committee as well as the Veterans' Affairs and Small Business Committees, and Bass is on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The National Beer Wholesalers Association's PAC also contributed to both New Hampshire incumbents. The association represents the interests of 1,800 brewers, 2,000 beer wholesalers and 560,000 retail establishments across the country, including 10 beer distributors in New Hampshire and their 620 employees. Its PAC gave $10,000 each to Bass and Bradley.
Michelle Semonef, the association's public affairs director, said one of the major reasons the PAC contributes to Bass and Bradley is their support for repealing the estate tax. She said the tax can impede the process of inheriting a business and pointed out that a lot of the association's members inherit small, family-owned businesses.
"We consistently look for candidates who are going to prop up small businesses, and they are both pro small-business leaders," Semonef said.
Another business PAC that has given the maximum $10,000 to Bradley are is the National Association of Realtors PAC. He also received the maximum contribution from House Speaker Dennis Hastert's leadership PAC, the Keep Our Majority PAC. PACs that gave the maximum to Bass included the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association PAC and the Daniel Webster PAC, which is New Hampshire Sen. John Sununu's leadership PAC.
Steve Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said business PACs favor incumbents because contributions to them begin to work immediately as the incumbents are already members of committees of interest to the companies.
"Donors view contributions as investments, and they're going to make the safest investments possible," Weiss said. "And contributions to a challenger are, frankly, a risky investment."
According to the FEC reports, Bradley had raised $925,197 and had $326,090 in the bank as of Sept. 30. Nadeau raised $589,760 but had only $14,592 left. Bass had raised $563,044 and had $295,347 on hand, while his opponents had raised $524,656 and had $89,305 on hand.
According to the FEC, Hodes received $10,000 from the PAC of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and $3,000 from the PAC of the Laborers' International Union of North America.
Dan Vicuna, a spokesman for the Hodes campaign, said that small, individual contributions were vitally important.
"You're not going to have the same kind of advantages as incumbency," he said, adding that the campaign was compensating by being creative in its approach to fundraising, with efforts like the campaign's Rock and Roll Back the Deficit tour. Vicuna said the tour combined Hodes' musical background with talk about the federal budget.
Nadeau received $10,000 each from the PACs of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Food Workers Union, according to FEC reports.
"If your opponent has a financial advantage, you just have to be smarter with the use of time," said Steve Marchand, campaign director for Nadeau. "You have to work harder on individual contributions . but you sleep better at night."
Bill Passes in House that Would Remove Barriers to Islet Cell Transplantation
WASHINGTON 10/14/04--With the Walk for Diabetes on Saturday in Portsmouth, the search for a cure for the more than a million Americans who have Type 1 diabetes comes into focus.
Last week, the search got a boost when the Congress passed a bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., and Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., that would remove some of the barriers to research on islet cell transplantations, a procedure that, if successful, would free Type 1 diabetics of insulin injections.
The problem, addressed by the bill, was that the procurement of islet cells, which are obtained from a donor pancreas, was not a qualifying procedure under organ procurement laws, as islet cell transplantation was classified as an experimental procedure
Not only did this block make it difficult for researchers to obtain pancreases, but it gave them little incentive to do so, as they wouldn't be certified to transplant cells from them anyhow. Also, in order to receive federal grants, an organization needs to be certified to perform organ transplants or procurement procedures.
The legislation, the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004, removed that block by making islet cell transplantation research a qualifying procedure..
The act also provides for an annual review by an oversight committee from the National Institutes of Health that will assess, among other things, the adequacy of federal funding and ways to increase the supply of islet cells, including procurement of organs from animals, or xenotransplantation.Bradley said the issue took on new importance for him after a visit in April to the McKelvie Middle School in Bedford, where he said a dozen children with Type 1 diabetes spoke about the difficulties of living with the disease.
"It just brought home to me how important. pancreatic islet cell research is in order to give us opportunities to cure these debilitating diseases," said Bradley.
Bass, in a press release, said, "This breakthrough medical research deserves every opportunity to successfully treat patients afflicted with diabetes. It has the potential to improve and save lives."
In Type 1 Diabetes, the immune system destroys the insulin-producing islet cells in the pancreas. According to the Mayo Clinic website, in pancreatic islet cell transplantation researchers remove islets from the pancreas of a deceased donor. A transplant for a 154 pound person requires one million islets, the amount in two pancreases.
Islets are injected into the liver via a catheter, because the cells grow well in the liver and the liver can perform as a back-up pancreas to produce insulin. The entire procedure can be done with a local anesthesia and takes less than an hour.
Islet cell transplantations done in the 1990's did not succeed in freeing patients from insulin injections for more than a year. But in 2000, Dr. James Shapiro of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, reported that seven of his transplantation patients had sustained insulin-production.
A spokesperson for the National Institutes of Health would not comment of why there were barriers to this procedure and what the dangers were with islet cell transplantation, but according to the institute's website, the dangers include anemia, nerve damage, meningitis and vulnerability to infection. Another obstacle is the scarcity of pancreases, as only 6,000 are available each year.
Alternatives to harvesting cells from adult pancreases include stem cells and pancreases of animals.
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases announced two weeks ago that it plans to award $75 million over five years to clinical centers in Iowa City, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Canada and Sweden to study islet transplantation, according to a press release.
The transplantation act went to the White House Oct. 13 but the President has not signed it, according to a spokesman in the press office. The White House spokesman said he did not know when the President would sign it.
###
