Category: Fall 2005 Newswire
Kennedy Criticizes Budget Cuts and Tax Cuts
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 – Citing a Republican agenda that he said helps America’s wealthiest, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., Monday criticized the expected budget cuts outlined in the House budget reduction bill and stressed the importance of helping low- and middle-income families in Massachusetts.
“This is a budget that is continuing to leave behind the needy families that today are paying the prices,” said Mr. Kennedy during a teleconference with reporters. “[These cuts] are hurting families that are facing higher costs for heating and health bills.”
Mr. Kennedy’s remarks come amidst controversy over the House bill passed last month, which many Democrats and some moderate Republicans contend cuts too much into such programs as food stamps, child support, child care, Medicaid and education.
The bill cuts approximately $50 billion in total spending, including $700 million from food stamps, $5 billion from child support programs and $12 billion from Medicaid over the next five years. Additionally, the House bill would cut $14.3 from federal student loans.
The bill also calls for tax cuts that would benefit taxpayers who make more than $1 million per year. Additionally, the House bill offers tax cuts on corporate dividends and capital gains.
“Republicans want $95 million in tax cuts,” Mr. Kennedy said. “This has a direct impact on children and working families.”
The Senate’s version of the bill, also passed last month, cuts around $35 billion in total spending over five years. The differences between the bills are expected to be worked out in the coming weeks, although a final draft may not emerge until some time early next year.
The House and Senate bills are part of a larger budget reconciliation meant to offset the cost of the Iraq war and hurricane relief.
“We are going to do everything we can to try and reduce oppression on needy families,” Mr. Kennedy said. He called the upcoming week in Congress one of the most important of the year.
“This week, the stakes couldn’t be higher for Massachusetts families facing record energy prices, soaring health care costs and rising tuition,” Mr. Kennedy said in a statement. “America can do better than the wrong priorities of the White House and Republican leadership,” Mr. Kennedy said. “The lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina have fallen on deaf ears and I believe it is immoral to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest on the backs of America’s working poor.”
###
DNC Panel Recommends New Early Caucuses Be Added to Election Calendar
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10- A special Democratic National Committee panel recommended Saturday that one or two presidential caucuses be inserted into the 2008 election calendar between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary as a way to include more racial, ethnic and geographic diversity among early voting states.
New Hampshire's primary election law, however, may thwart the Democratic plans.
The proposal, which must be approved by the full DNC, would also add primaries in one or two other states after New Hampshire votes and before Feb. 5, the official "window" that the party establishes every four years for its presidential nominating contests.
States in the South and Southwest have been discussed, but which ones should join Iowa and New Hampshire in early voting would be left up to the DNC.
Although the panel's proposal would leave New Hampshire as the site of the nation's first presidential primary, Secretary of State William Gardner has said that state law requires him to schedule the primary at least a week before any "similar election" and that caucuses in any state other than Iowa would qualify as "similar.".
"I will set the date in the spring of 2007, and I will set it so that it preserves the New Hampshire tradition," he said. "The state law will be followed no matter what happens."
When asked if the matter might end up in court, Gardner responded, "Anything can end up in court."
New Hampshire Democratic Gov. John Lynch has also pledged to protect the state's first-in-the-nation status and said he would support Gardner's efforts.
Other state Democrats are up in arms over the DNC panel's recommendations, including New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, who issued a statement Saturday saying the national party was "crazy" to try to strip a valuable swing state like New Hampshire of something so important to its heritage.
Raymond Buckley, vice-chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, predicted that the relationship between the state and national party would suffer if the DNC approved the proposals.
"Kathy Sullivan and I and other Democrats agree that we are New Hampshire Democrats first and national Democrats second," he said. "If this means we have to stand up to the full DNC, then so be it."
The panel's proposal recommends that the criteria for choosing which states should accompany Iowa and New Hampshire as early voters be based on racial, ethnic, regional, and economic diversity.
"We wanted to recommend a process that would be more inclusive," said Alexis Herman, co-chairwoman of the panel. "We have reached a significant milestone."
The minority population in both Iowa and New Hampshire is small, with African Americans making up only 0.8 percent, compared with 12.2 percent for the nation as a whole, and Hispanic/Latinos making up only 2.1 percent, compared with the national figure of 14.2 percent.
A leading figure in the fight to diversify the primary process has been Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.
"We are an anti-privilege party," he said. "We shouldn't have a rule that says some states are more equal than others. Even this is barely a crack in the wall that Iowa and New Hampshire have surrounded themselves by."
But James Farrell, a campaign expert and professor of communications at the University of New Hampshire, said that the logic for adding more caucuses to increase diversity was faulty.
"It is true that New Hampshire does not have a large minority population," he said. "But the impact of that is overstated. I think that black, white, and Hispanic voters are all concerned about the same issues. Why are racial demographics the key factor over all other kinds of diversity that may or may not be present in other communities, like income or education?"
The voters in New Hampshire bring diversity to the electoral process in other ways, Farrell argued.
"There are a lot of independent voters here who are willing to tell their party from time to time, 'You can't take me for granted,' " he said. "Very few places do it as well as New Hampshire. If I had to rely on one state to pick the candidate that would run for president, I would pick New Hampshire to do it, because of the experience they have in doing it and the seriousness with which they undertake the process."
Some Granite Staters are worried about what would happen to the state economically if the primary were to lose some of its thunder.
A study commissioned by the New Hampshire Political Library found that the Democratic and Republican primaries in 2000 generated more than $260 million in economic activity in the state, with large portions of that money going to hotels, restaurants and rental car companies.
"It would affect our business for sure," said Darlene Johnston, owner of the Ash Street Inn, a bed and breakfast in Manchester. "For the last one we had a lot of journalists and campaign workers stay with us....I was floored that so many people would just drop everything and come up here."
And although the panel has recommended that Iowa remain the nation's first caucus state, Iowa Democrats are very sympathetic to New Hampshire's cause, according to Jennifer Mullen of Gov. Thomas Vilsack's office.
"We definitely see it as kind of a partnership," she said. "The governor has rallied just as hard for New Hampshire to remain the first primary as he did to keep Iowa as the first caucus."
Local Democratic organizations in New Hampshire are worried about the political ramifications of losing part of the Granite's States treasured identity.
"We serve a valuable purpose for the nation: we vet the candidates," said state Rep. Jane Clemons of the Nashua City Democrats. "It's a tough group to fool, and candidates don't get away with platitudes and rhetoric. If they change the primary, I'm really concerned that we will go to a tarmac president" who puts in only token airport appearances.
Clemons said she also fears what will happen to the Democratic Party if the quarrel over New Hampshire's primary escalates.
"We'll have a candidate by March with no focus and no media attention because Republicans aren't going to change what they're doing," she said. "It is going to hurt us as a party."
Warren Henderson, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, said the Democrats were making a mistake.
"Our primary is under siege on the Democratic side," he said. "When I listen to what is likely to be proposed, I am really concerned about it. If the problem is with diversity, than why isn't this being done with caucuses? Primaries are for regular people to vote. Caucuses are for political insiders. It just seems inconsistent."
Several high-profile Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have made statements in favor of keeping New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation status.
Henderson says he thinks that the GOP is keeping the status quo because the party is aware of the valuable national service New Hampshire provides.
"New Hampshire measures a candidate's viability," he said. "Nobody can come up to the state during a primary, give speeches in the cold, go door to door, and not ultimately reveal who they really are. This is the reason people still have meetings and don't conduct everything over the phone or internet: you get a better idea of who someone is when you see them face to face."
###
Fixing a Broken System: How New Immigration Policy Would Affect the Cape
WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - When restaurant owner Felis Barreiro questions a foreign worker about suspect documentation, the worker usually vanishes the next day. Barreiro, like many Cape Cod employers, is left to question the validity of the country's current immigration system.
"I'd be very in favor of a [new] guest worker program," said Barreiro, owner of Alberto's restaurant in Hyannis. "We need proper papers so there's nothing down the road to come back to haunt us."
In the coming weeks Cape employers will begin the often tedious and paper-drenched process of filing to bring immigrant workers into the country for the 2006 tourist season.
With large numbers of foreign workers, legal and illegal, already in the country, confusion on the part of the government and employer often leads to misconception in the general public.
Immigration reform in general has long been a touchy subject in the United States, but the migrant worker policy itself forces workers to seek help, employers to seek clarity, and politicians to try to appease everyone.
"It's a very touchy subject," said Barreiro.
While Barreiro is plowing through paperwork, several immigration reform bills are working through Congress, the most popular of which was introduced in May by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Their bipartisan Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act was touted as comprehensive immigration reform that addresses border security, access to health care and a new worker visa program. The McCain-Kennedy bill was simultaneously introduced in the House by Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and others.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., introduced their own comprehensive immigration reform bill in July. The Cornyn-Kyl bill has a temporary worker component that allows workers in the country for two years, requiring them to return to their home country for one year before applying to the program again. It also would require illegal workers already in the United States to leave the country before they are able to get in the pipeline for
permanent residency.
Last month Kyl joined President Bush in Arizona at a border issues briefing. Bush supports the position that guest workers, legal and illegal, should return home after their time here expires, according to a release from Kyl's office.
Melissa Wagoner, Kennedy's press secretary, said Judiciary Committee hearings on the McCain-Kennedy bill should begin at the conclusion of the committee's hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, which are scheduled to start Jan. 9.
"We're obviously anxious for this to become a reality," Wagoner said.
Kennedy met with Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern on Dec. 1 to discuss the immigration policy, among other things. According to Kennedy's office there are up to 50,000 Irish in the United States who could benefit from immigration reform. In October the Irish Parliament endorsed the McCain-Kennedy bill. Mexican President Vicente Fox also has endorsed the proposal.
Besides foreign governments, the McCain-Kennedy bill has received widespread support via editorials and established organizations.
In October McCain and Kennedy laid out their proposal in front of economists and business owners at the supportive U.S. Chamber of Commerce immigration conference in Washington.
"We could really do something that is really in our national interest in the interest of our national heritage," Kennedy said at the conference.
The McCain-Kennedy bill seeks to tighten border security and was explained as a national security matter by both senators.
According to McCain, border enforcement funding has tripled and the number of agents patrolling the borders has doubled but illegal immigration has doubled as well.
"There is a demand and there is a supply," McCain said in October of immigrants. "When people can't feed themselves and their families where they are, they'll go some place where they can."
Those immigrants who arrive on Cape Cod are the intended beneficiaries of a key aspect of the McCain-Kennedy bill: a new worker visa program that addresses legal and illegal immigrants. This section would immediately and significantly impact the hidden backbone of the Cape's workforce.
According to the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, the Cape increases its workforce seasonally by 25 percent: Year round the Cape has a stable workforce of around 100,000 but during the tourist season that jumps to around 125,000. In the past decade between five and six thousand of those additional workers come from overseas.
"We have become very dependent on immigrant labor for seasonal time frames," said Wendy Northcross, CEO of the Cape Cod Chamber.
The majority of positions being filled by these workers are considered unskilled. This commonly means jobs in the hospitality and service industry, such as hotel workers or landscapers. These jobs must first be offered to American workers, but if they go unfilled, the employer can seek international help.
Currently there are several routes Cape employers take to bring workers to their businesses. One of the most common is the H-2B worker visa. The H-2B allows workers to be in the country for nine months, although they can extend it for another 9 months. Many workers will spend winters working at ski resorts and then move south.
Historically, the Cape relies on the H-2B program more than most other regions of the country, according to Northcross.
She said there is a burgeoning Brazilian population on the Cape and many of the seasonal workers are from Jamaica or Eastern Europe. According to immigration attorney Matt Lee, there are already three to five thousand Brazilians on the Cape working illegally.
"H-2B is a system that doesn't work," said Lee, who is on the Cape Cod Chamber's board of directors and workforce development committee.
Perhaps the most irritating aspect for employers, besides the laborious application process, is what the current program does not address: After a worker's time expires he or she must leave the U.S. and return to their home country. Many people involved with the issue feel this is part of what begins, and perpetuates, the illegality of many migrant workers.
Many Americans traditionally have trouble swallowing anything involving immigrant workers because they automatically associate the issue with jobs being taken away from Americans.
"People think they steal American jobs. They don't steal American jobs; they're here because they already got a job," Lee said. "I can understand the animosity towards immigration, but it's truly unfounded if you look at it from a macroeconomic level."
To this end, immigration policy has become a thorny issue for politicians trying to balance demands from opposing views.
"Our proposal helps fill a mismatch between the kinds of jobs created and the kinds of workers available in the U.S." Kennedy said. "Our society is aging. As baby boomers retire, they require more services. Their kids want to go to college, not work in the fields, factories, or the services sector. And more than half the new jobs being created in our economy require hard work but little formal degrees."
In some cases, views on immigration policy are rife with misconception. There is the argument that college students, home for the summer, would quickly snatch up these positions.
However, as Barreiro noted, college workers usually do not completely fulfill an employer's needs. Because the students arrive in May or June and leave the end of August, they miss several months at the start and close of the tourist season, leaving many Cape employers understaffed for a large chunk of what could be a very profitable time.
"I don't think people look at it economically and rationally," Lee said. "They look at it from their gut like, 'I'm not losing my job to a damn foreigner.'"
Protecting American workers is a part of the H-2B program. Employers must exhaust all American options for employees before opening the position to international workers, a stipulation the McCain-Kennedy bill retained.
Their bill proposes a new H-5A visa to complement the H-2B program. Employers and potential employees would go through a similar process but with key differences: Potential workers must prove they have a job, get health and security risk clearance and pay application fees.
"The guest worker visa [proposal] is terrific for the country and it's terrific for the Cape because it addresses the biggest problem in America today, which is a critical labor shortage in the service industry," Lee said.
The new visa, for jobs requiring little or no skill, would last for three years and would be renewable for another three years. After the sixth year the worker could stay in the United States if he or she is in the pipeline to obtain permanent residency. Whereas the cap for the amount of H-2Bs that can be given out is somewhere around 60,000, according to Northcross, there would be 400,000 H-5As distributed at the outset under the McCain-Kennedy bill. Each year that cap would fluctuate depending on demand.
"We need to do more to help immigrants enter the United States legally and help American businesses that need the manpower immigrant workers are looking to give," Kennedy said.
The McCain-Kennedy bill also provides for undocumented workers already in the country, an issue Barreiro describes as major.
He said many immigrants, mostly illegal, move around constantly because they are afraid of being caught by the government. When an inquiry comes in about a Social Security number that does not match up with the national database, Barreiro calls in the worker in question, asking for verification. On numerous occasions the worker claims to have the information at home but does not return to work the next day. Barreiro would like to see workers keep their jobs so he can provide more extensive training and give them the opportunity to move up in his company.
"You invest money in these people and you train them and before you know it they're gone then you have to start all over again," Barreiro said. He emphasized he is one of many employers facing this problem.
The McCain-Kennedy bill allows immigrants already in the U.S. without documentation, most likely illegally, to register for the temporary visa and get into the pipeline for permanent residency. They must prove they will be working, pass security checks and pay substantial fines and back taxes.
But opponents say this policy amounts to amnesty.
"The Kennedy-McCain bill doesn't lean toward amnesty. It is an amnesty," said John Vinson, editor at Americans for Immigration Control, in an E-mail. "It rewards people who have broken our laws and invites others to do the same."
Vinson said the fine is merely a slap on the wrist and makes American citizenship a bargain-priced commodity.
Kennedy said his bill is not offering a free pass or a trip to the front of the line. "We support proposals that provide an opportunity for undocumented immigrants who are already working in our communities and contributing to our nation to come forward . . . and obtain a temporary visa that could lead to permanent residency, over time," he said.
For Lee, the most controversial part of this is what to do with the 10 to 15 million workers in the country illegally filling jobs. The McCain-Kennedy proposal for him is not offering amnesty but, rather, forces illegal workers to find an employer and register with the government.
Lee, and others, say making an immigration policy palatable for the American public is the biggest difficulty facing politicians. But, he says, if you asked each hospitality business on Cape Cod, the majority would support keeping workers here for an extended period of time.
"If we can make them legal, documented, tax-paying citizens," Northcross said, "that would be a good thing for our country."
-30-
Delahunt’s Chief of Staff to Move On
WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - On Steve Schwadron's first day on the job he watched Sen. Ted Kennedy announce his candidacy for President of the United States. That was more than 25 years ago when Schwadron worked for the former 10th district Congressman. Gerry Studds, D-Mass.
Since then Schwadron has avoided the hypnotic dazzle of Washington players to become chief of staff for first Studds and, currently, Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass. But Schwadron announced this week that next month he is leaving his Capitol Hill office and the position he has held for almost 20 years.
"It's a fascinating workplace and, most important, it's been rewarding to be able to stay so close to issues of importance to the Cape and Islands and to work on those issues in a national arena," Schwadron said. "It's a time in my own life when I'd like to explore some new challenges."
Schwadron, who is 50, will go from public service to public affairs. Along with Jeff Pike, former Chatham fisherman and staff director of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, he will work in a public affairs business overseen by the Washington, D.C., law firm Sher & Blackwell. Mark Forest, who currently manages Delahunt's Massachusetts offices, will replace Schwadron as chief of staff.
After graduating from Brown University, Schwadron worked as a reporter for almost four years. He wrote for the now defunct Provincetown Advocate, where he says he learned the basic skills and philosophy he still utilizes today.
"Working in weekly papers on the Cape, I carried that kind of worldview here," Schwadron said. "I think of what we do here in the congressional office as being a variation on that. The formula is the same, the product is different: that idea of being very well rooted locally without being parochial in scope."
Schwadron, who grew up in Rhode Island and has lived in Hawaii, California and Barnstable, was offered a job with Studds as a liaison to local Cape communities. In 1986, after four years of nightly, year-round law school classes, Schwadron picked up a law degree from Georgetown and a chief of staff position from Studds.
When Studds did not run for reelection in 1996 Schwadron prepared for a job change. But he was surprised when Delahunt, the newly elected congressman, approached him with the offer to remain on staff.
When asked why he accepted the position Schwadron replied simply, "Him."
"They're very different people, Studds and Delahunt," Schwadron said. "I guess I hadn't considered until that moment how new and fresh it could be by just changing the name on the door."
But if Schwadron was to stay, so was the rest of the staff, a stipulation Delahunt agreed to.
"Most people want their own stamp on the thing and there's an ego," Schwadron said. "That really impressed me; it tells me he's a guy who knows how to say no."
Delahunt said Schwadron's reputation preceded him. "I think it was a wise choice on my part because I had a learning curve," said Delahunt. But Schwadron and the staff had no learning curve and were able to take leadership roles.
"Not only is he a superb public servant but he's a dear friend," Delahunt said. "It's been a very rewarding relationship in the sense that we've worked on some very significant issues that have had a positive impact on the lives of many, many, many people."
Both Schwadron and Delahunt cited an international adoption treaty and the recent acquisition of 13 million gallons of discounted oil for low income Massachusetts families, as some of the major accomplishments in their nine-year collaboration.
The Capitol dome, the monuments and the historical buildings don't captivate Schwadron like they do many staffers. But rather it is the proximity to important decisions.
"It's the fact that you can actually see it, not to mention help shape it right before your eyes," he said. "It's not always pretty, it's not always the outcome that you want . . . but you actually are in the mix, and I guess that's what gets me."
###
Holy Cross Grad Makes a Career of Working for Children
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7-Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said his family was surprised when his nephew, Mark Shriver, married because they thought he was the likeliest in his generation to become a priest.
Sen. Kennedy said Mr. Shriver was particularly attentive to children. "He always had a special magic with them."
Mr. Shriver, 41, who has devoted much of his life to children's issues, is now the head of U.S. programs for Save the Children, a nonprofit organization that focuses on child welfare at home and abroad. His department runs literacy and nutrition programs in 12 states aimed at children in rural and impoverished areas.
A graduate of College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mr. Shriver credits his years in Jesuit schools with nurturing his commitment to helping people. "They're drilling it in your head that there is a need for social justice," he said. "It's part of the church's teaching, and it's part of what we're called to do."
While an undergraduate majoring in history, he tutored kids in a Worcester public school as part of a program called "Community Cares," which he said sought to bring values into the schools.
During the summers he worked for his brother, Timothy Shriver, who directed the Connecticut Precollege Enrichment Program at the University of Connecticut campus in Hartford, which was one of the "upward bound" programs that their father, Sargent Shriver, had helped start.
The program tutored "high-risk, high-potential" kids, said Timothy Shriver, who currently is chairman of Special Olympics, which his mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founded. There were classes, but there were also canoeing trips, and basketball and softball games.
During the summer, the tutors-which included the Shrivers' brother, Anthony, and their cousin, John F. Kennedy Jr.-lived in dorms with their charges, and friendships developed, Timothy Shriver said. There wasn't much age difference between the college tutors and the high school students they worked with.
"It was a high-impact experience for Mark," said Timothy Shriver, who said his brother was enthusiastic about the work from the beginning.
One of the friendships Mark Shriver developed was with a high school freshman named Derrick Campbell. His single mom "worked about 50 jobs to keep us in line," Mr. Campbell said.
Mr. Shriver was his English tutor, Mr. Campbell said, and "he was hard on me. We butted heads for a while." When the summer ended and Mr. Campbell returned to school, Mr. Shriver wrote him a letter from London, where he was studying, asking about his progress in English and trying to motivate him to do well.
"It struck a chord with me," Mr. Campbell said. He said Mr. Shriver's attitude was, "Hey, you can have it, too.. You have just as much right to do these things as anyone."
When he graduated from Connecticut College years later, Mr. Campbell was persuaded by Mr. Shriver to put off starting a business career for a year or two and instead to work on "turning the tide" for underprivileged kids. Mr. Campbell is now a financial services adviser in New York City.
Mr. Shriver worked for Gov. William Donald Schaefer of Maryland, who had begun the process of deinstitutionalizing juvenile delinquents in the state, finding other ways to rehabilitate them, according to Mr. Shriver.
He left that job in 1988 to start the Choice program, which worked to rehabilitate children who had been in trouble with the law .
In 1994, Mr. Shriver was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates. "He had a lot of credibility on children's issues," said colleague Peter Franchot, who like Mr. Shriver represented Montgomery County and sat next to him in the chamber. Del. Franchot said Mr. Shriver became the legislator everyone looked to for guidance on children's issues.
In 1999 Mr. Shriver became chairman of the Children, Youth and Family subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
"He represents the people the powerful forget are there," Del. Franchot said.
In 2002, Mr. Shriver ran for Congress in Maryland's 8 th district and lost in the primary to Chris Van Hollen, who defeated the Republican incumbent in the general election. The next year Mr. Shriver joined Save the Children.
Jeanne-Aimee De Marrais, Save the Children's director of external affairs, said Mr. Shriver, when he came aboard, introduced the literacy initiative as an extension of his work in the legislature, because "for children to overcome poverty they have to learn to read."
Mr. Shriver said his department at Save the Children concentrates on literacy and nutritional after-school programs because "we wanted to do a couple of things exceedingly well." He also was involved in child welfare efforts in the Gulf Coast this fallin response to the displacement of so many children by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Investment in children and education is a passion for Mr. Shriver, and he said that legislation that focuses only on accountability is not enough. "If we were really serious about children being our most important resource we'd be investing in early childhood education, investing in our K-12 system," he said.
Mr. Shriver and his wife, Jeanne, have three children, Tommy, Molly and Emma. He said they inspire him to help other kids. Emma, who is nine months old, "has a mind like a sponge," he said. "If you work with them, they'll do great in school," he said.
"Kids in poor areas are just as talented" as his own children, he said, and they deserve the opportunity to succeed, too.
Timothy Shriver said his brother was "crazy in love with his kids," and devoted every moment he could to them when he wasn't traveling for work.
Both Timothy Shriver said Sen. Kennedy describe Mark Shriver's commitment to social justice for children as emotional, not intellectual. Mark Shriver himself quoted Martin Luther King's sentiment about the "paralysis of analysis" and the Jesuits' call to be a "thinker in action" as an explanation for his philosophy. Rather than studying child poverty, he works with it.
Mr. Shriver said he had not ruled out the possibility of returning to politics some day, "but I'm not dreaming of it." His brother, Timothy, said he'd be "surprised if he didn't find a way back in over time."
Their uncle, Sen. Kennedy, said his nephew seems absorbed in his current work. "He gets a great deal of satisfaction from helping children," the senator said. He didn't say whether he thought Mr. Shriver would reenter the family business.
#####
Sununu Against Telecommunications Reform
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7- Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), speaking at a telecommunications forum Wednesday, said he opposes the rules originally meant for the telephone companies in the 1930s being applied to Internet service providers in the 21 st century.
At issue is the federal government's commitment to provide basic communications access to all American citizens, regardless of income level or geographic location.
While Sununu said he supports reforming the $6.5 billion program, which provides universal service nationwide by subsidizing small telecommunications companies and regulating the industry's business practices, he specified that he favored federal intervention only when it came to emergency services, low-income residents, and rural areas where the cost of communications services might deter corporations from providing service or pass unreasonably high costs onto consumers.
"I'm not saying walk away from rules and regulations by any stretch. But let's ask the questions in a thoughtful way," he said. "What is it that is so compelling about it [telecommunications technology] that requires more regulation than the auto industry? What is it that is so compelling about the SCI-FI channel?"
Sununu also said the subsidy program that provides Internet access to public libraries and schools had become corrupt and mismanaged.
"There are clearly people on the receiving end of funds that you would never justify giving [them] a subsidy," he said. "It is meant to be a subsidy to those in the highest cost area -- rural -- or to those consumers with low-incomes."
The Progress and Freedom Foundation, which organized the event, is a think tank that favors government deregulation of the telecommunications industry. The foundation is supported by major telephone, computer, and television industry corporations like Comcast and Verizon Communication, two of the largest telecommunication companies serving New Hampshire.
Cath Mullholand, a telephone utility analyst for the New Hampshire Utility Commission, said that a rural state like New Hampshire may be adversely affected by total deregulation of telecommunications services.
"We may be rushing just a little bit too fast into deregulation," she said. "Competition can replace regulation, but there needs to be competition. Service is very spotty in rural areas of New Hampshire and there is one service provider. What happens when the cost to maintain the network becomes too expensive and the corporation leaves or charges a lot more for service? The government will have to come back in and regulate again and it will be more costly."
Jeff Chester, the executive director at the Center for Digital Democracy, said that he views the effort to deregulate universal service with skepticism.
"You shouldn't be denied your right to Google as a civil right," he said. "We live in a digital society and the equity gap is not going to close itself. There needs to be a federal mandate to provide basic communication services to all people."
Sununu suggested that deregulation would not break the program.
"It is really only dramatic if you were cryogenically frozen in 1934 and woke up today," he said. "Universal service has some significant weakness: It distorts the marketplace, no question about it. It undermines innovation."
He also criticized the basic thinking behind some of the program's components that required telecommunications companies and Internet providers to register with the federal government.
"This in my thinking is out of the 1930s," he said. "I don't even know if it's fair to compare it to the 1930s as it is to the Stalin era. Find an 8 th grader. Ask them if they can understand or see a reason for Internet providers to register with the government. They will tell you in their capacity as an 8 th grader: Get rid of the regulations"
Dr. Mark Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, agreed with Mullholand.
"In rural state like New Hampshire, there isn't likely to be very much competition because it is expensive," he said. "If a competing network doesn't exist in a rural area, there will either be a monopoly, or a no-opoly: No service at all. Do we care about making sure everyone in society has access to the basic means of communication?"
#####
Immigrants Targeted in House Deficit Reduction Bill
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - Janice Dos Santos volunteers as a translator at a food pantry in Chelmsford and knows many people who have immigrated to the Merrimack Valley, relying on food stamps to help support their families.
As an immigrant herself, the 19-year-old wife and mother knows how difficult the struggle is. Five years ago she came to Lowell, Mass., with her family from Joinville in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina. Dos Santos learned English in school and with her parents' support is pursuing a nursing degree at Middlesex Community College. When she isn't studying, she works at a doctor's office and at a cleaning company part-time.
Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Women, Infants and Children Program Dos Santos gets supplemental formula for her 2-year-old son, and through the local welfare office she gets day care services for him while she attends school. She is lucky, she said, because her father, who runs a car dealership in Lowell, chips in money to pay the tuition costs and she doesn't need food stamps.
But many people, she said, have to work multiple jobs and can't afford school including some young women "who work 80 hours a week at $6 to $7 an hour." Basic needs such as utility bills and rent consume the money earned from low wage jobs. As a result, Dos Santos said, they depend on food assistance programs to help defray the expenses.
But now it could get even harder for low-income families, particularly those of immigrants. In the coming weeks negotiators from the Senate and House are scheduled to discuss their respective versions of deficit reduction legislation. Among the items on the chopping block are food stamps. The House version of the bill would toss 255,000 people off of food stamps-70,000 of them legal immigrants-by 2008, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. On Nov. 18 the House narrowly passed its bill, 217 to 215. All Democrats and 14 Republicans opposed the bill.
The Senate version includes cuts to other assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid but does not cut food stamps. While President Bush has threatened to veto the Senate proposal because of slashes to Medicare and Medicaid, he has remained silent about cuts to food stamps.
The House bill overturns Bush administration initiatives in 2002 to restore some welfare benefits, and although the administration didn't ask for the cuts, it said it strongly supports the bills and "appreciates the House's efforts to promote spending discipline," achieving close to $50 billion in savings, according to the administration's official statement.
These cuts come at a time when discussions of poverty, class and race are at the forefront of national attention because of the devastation left by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It has been widely reported that pockets of the affected areas where many minorities and immigrants resided weren't able to evacuate quickly or to get access to resources in the storms' aftermaths.
Under current law, low-income adult immigrants who meet the eligibility requirements are barred from receiving food stamps for the first five years they are in the country, but under the proposed House bill immigrants would have to wait an additional two years.
There are exceptions to the cuts. Immigrants who currently participate in the food stamp program, who are 60 years or older, or who are in the process of applying for citizenship would be exempt. But poor non-elderly legal immigrants with serious disabilities not already participating would be disqualified immediately. After a two-year phase in period, the full cuts would go into effect by 2008.
The federal savings generated by extending the amount of time immigrants are in the country from five years to seven years is $255 million over a five-year period, which is part of an overall $697 million cut to food stamps, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"To come up with a goofy rule of going from five to seven years seems so arbitrary and mean-spirited," said Jonathan Blazer, a public benefits policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. "What it's about is creating an unwelcoming environment to immigrants."
At the heart of this issue is differentiating between immigrants who are in the country legally and those who aren't. Only immigrants with lawful permanent resident, refugee or asylums status are authorized to receive public benefits. However, the public misconception often is that illegal immigrants also have access to the benefits, a notion propagated by some politicians said Blazer.
"This framing continues a campaign that has included Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) giving the impression that food stamp cuts have something to do with illegal immigration or illegal immigrants fraudulently obtaining food stamps, a claim that is erroneous," Blazer said, adding that the cuts hurt those immigrants who "pay taxes, have children in the military and contribute positively to society."
"The response from our office is illegal immigration has never been a topic that has been broached at all," said Alise Kowalski, spokesperson for the Agriculture Committee. Goodlatte-an attorney with immigration law background-"would never confuse the legal with illegal non-citizens," she said.
An earlier version of the House Republican Conference's summary of the deficit reduction bill, however, listed "restricting illegal immigrant access to food stamps and Medicaid" as a key provision. It has since been corrected, but it is an example of the confusion surrounding the issue. Blazer said that politicians "make a name for themselves for being tough on immigrants. But it has nothing to do with that."
A spokesperson for Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), the chairman for House Republican Conference, said adding illegal immigrants to the agenda was "a typo."
The problem, said supporters of the legislation, is with policies allowing large numbers of legal immigrants into the country.
"I don't want to import people who will be a burden to the country," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan research group that favors stricter immigration policies. "Don't let low-skilled workers in. Once you let in a low-skilled worker there will be a whole variety of fiscal and economical burdens he'll add."
The American public shouldn't have to bear that burden, agreed Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a public-interest group seeking to change immigration laws to lower legal immigration.
"Citizens are different than non-citizens," he said. "Coming to the U.S. is a conditional agreement."
Although an immigrant receiving food stamps is not a public charge-an immigration law term used when a person has no income other than federal cash benefits-Mehlman said "the fact you don't rely 100 percent on aid does not mean it isn't still a burden."
"There is always a double standard: immigrants are here for their own self-interest," he said. "But when people [who are opposed to immigration] say 'It is not in my self-interest,' all of a sudden they are mean people."
In the last 10 years Washington lawmakers have made changes in the welfare benefits laws, resulting in a decrease of participation among immigrants. People have shied away from seeking benefits because the changes have made the fine print confusing and they fear breaking the rules, according to some persons who work with immigrants.
The most significant overhaul to the welfare system came in 1996 with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Under the law, commonly referred to as the welfare reform act, no one could receive benefits for more than five years and the states were charged with determining how to distribute the funds under a new block grant system. It also dramatically reduced immigrants' eligibility to federally funded benefits in their first five years of residence.
"The net impact was to send a message-that participation was a big mistake," said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group.
In Massachusetts, the state government scrambled to ensure that low-income families could still get access to food stamps through a state-funded package, said Patricia Baker, a senior policy analyst for the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute in Boston. The largest financial impact of the federal cuts was on the immigrant community, she said.
"We were staring down the barrel of a gun," Baker said. "And there was an outcry by states that they were being dumped on."
Although welfare benefits were restored somewhat in 1998 and 2002, the changes made immigrants leery of seeking benefits. In 2001, the overall food stamp participation rate in Massachusetts plummeted to the lowest in the country, according to a February 2005 report by Katy Mastman, a fellow at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.
At the center of why participation is low among eligible immigrants is the lack of public campaigns explaining law changes and fears that complying incorrectly with rule changes could affect the outcome of their citizenship application or, worse, could result in deportation, Baker said.
The state's participation rate for food stamps has increased slightly in recent years but still remains third from the bottom, according to the study. In 2003, nationwide 62 percent of the persons eligible for food stamps sought to receive them, while in Massachusetts the participation rate was 47 percent.
The House bill's proposed cuts are not as restrictive as those made in 1996, but another change to benefits could undo steps taken to restore benefits in recent years, Blazer said. "We are still working to fix what happened," he said.
A concern is the impact that the legislation has on children. The majority of immigrants who would be cut off from food stamps for an additional two years are parents earning low-wages, so their children, while not cut off themselves, would be affected if the amount of food stamps received by the family was sharply reduced.
Also, children could lose access to free school meals-which under current law they are automatically eligible for if their family receives food stamps-posing an additional burden to families, as well as to states and school districts which may not be able to afford picking up the responsibility.
Patricia Karl, the superintendent of Lawrence Family Development Charter School, where 99 percent of the 523 students attending the school are Latino, said the double impact of children being cut of from food at home and at school "would be detrimental to learning and a great tragedy."
In the Lawrence school district, she said, there are 4,200 children who could be directly affected by the cuts.
She denounces those who say immigrants should be treated differently than citizens. "As a nation of immigrants, everyone has come over as an immigrant," Karl said. "No one had a visa when they came to Plimoth Plantation."
###
Air Traffic Controllers Quarrel with FAA
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 - Contract negotiation disputes between the Federal Aviation Administration and the air traffic controllers union have damaged morale and may lead to fewer persons entering the high-stress field, according to a union representative in New Hampshire.
"Morale is pretty low right now," said Mike Blake, the northeastern representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "There are concerns over staffing and retirement. The FAA is not pulling people in fast enough to handle that."
Blake works at the Boston Air Traffic Control Center in Nashua, the 16 th busiest of its kind in the country. He represents all of the approximately 420 controllers working in New Hampshire.
The union has been in contract negotiations with the FAA since July 13. The old contract expired Sept. 30, and on Monday FAA administrator Marion Blakey called for a federal mediator to assist in the negotiations, saying the union's demands for an increase in the basic salaries were unacceptable.
"The whole thing was a publicity stunt," said Doug Church, spokesman for the controllers union. "They want to take the contract to Congress, declare an impasse and bypass the entire collective bargaining process."
Because of restrictions regulating contract negotiations with federal employees like air traffic controllers, the matter would be brought before Congress should either side declare an impasse. If Congress does not rule in favor of one side after 60 days, the union would be forced under federal statutes to accept the FAA's last best offer.
"The administrator [Blakey] was very clear," said Laura Brown, spokeswoman for the FAA. "She wants a voluntary agreement. But we're still very far apart on issues like pay and compensation."
Air traffic controllers, according to Brown, earn an average of $166,000 annually, including benefits, a figure the union disputes.
"It is a way of cooking the books so they can say we're overpaid," Church said. "Our best guess according to our pay tables is that we make about 100 to 150 [thousand]."
The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that New Hampshire controllers are the highest paid in the nation, with the average controller in the state earning $118,000 annually. But that does not include benefits.
Labor costs account for 80 percent of the FAA's $8.2 billion budget, according to agency statistics. The agency proposed freezing controllers' salaries, with merit-based pay raises replacing cost-of-living increases. The union. According to the FAA, has asked for a 5.6 percent pay increase each year over the next five years, although the union has publicly disputed such figures, saying it asked for the increases only over the next two years
The union's Blake said he thinks the contentious negotiations have contributed to a bogged-down hiring process, leading to a shortage of controllers.
"I think you need to attract the best people possible, and we're pushing right now," he said. "The mandatory retirement age is 56, and we've got a lot pf people in the twilight of their careers. It is really a young person's game."
The United States has the busiest airspace in the world, and there are now more flights in the air than at any previous period in the history of aviation, but with fewer controllers guiding more airplanes, Blake said.
A Government Accountability Office report in June 2002, states that "the FAA has not done enough to plan for the impending staffing crisis and needs to do so as soon as possible."
"You can't help but think the delay in hiring is because of the new low pay scale," Blake said. "If they were to bring in people today, they'd be covered by the old pay scale. But once the new pay scale is negotiated, they [the FAA] could bring in new people for lower wages."
Blake said he also fears that should the negotiations get ugly, many controllers will find their jobs outsourced to private contractors.
Hiring is going along as usual, according to Brown, who said the FAA plans to make 1,249 new hires in 2006 to replace 654 retirees.
"The hiring process is going completely as planned," she said. "We plan to bring in 12,500 over a 10-year period."
####
New Hampshire Case Considered by Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 -- With protesters from both sides assembled on the street outside, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday from New Hampshire's attorney general and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in the court's first abortion-rights case in five years.
At issue was New Hampshire's 2003 Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, which prohibits minors from obtaining an abortion until at least 48 hours after a parent or guardian has been notified.
The act waives that requirement if a judge determines that the minor is "mature and capable of giving confirmed consent" or if the minor's life is at risk. But-and this is the heart of the legal argument-it does not include an emergency health exemption if the minor's life is not at risk but she faces bodily injury if the pregnancy continues.
Justice Stephen Breyer almost immediately began firing questions about the clarity of the statute at New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who argued on behalf of the state.
What options would a physician have, Breyer asked, if a pregnant teen who faced injury from the pregnancy arrived at the medical office when a judge could not be reached and a parent had not been notified.
Ayotte said that an existing state law would protect physicians who performed abortions in this situation.
"It doesn't say that in this legislation," Breyer shot back. "It says the contrary."
According to the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, state abortion laws must provide an explicit "health exception." Ayotte said that the judicial bypass mechanism in the bill satisfies this requirement.
"The judicial bypass provision and the death exception are constitutionally sufficient and legal means of protecting the health of a minor," Ayotte said in a written statement the day before the court hearing. The act "does not present a substantial obstacle to any woman's right to choose an abortion; instead, the act provides pregnant minors with the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice."
Other than questioning what Ayotte meant when she said that a doctor who performs an abortion without receiving a judicial approval and when the minor's parent had not been notified were "constitutionally protected," Justice David Souter, a former New Hampshire attorney general, was quiet during the hearing.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, joined Ayotte in defending the law, which has never been applied in the state because of an injunction imposed after its passage. Jennifer E. Dalven, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's life at risk," Dalven said. "Delaying appropriate care can be catastrophic" and lead to injuries to the liver or kidneys, stroke and infertility, among other conditions.
Justice Antonin Scalia reminded Dalven that "it takes 30 seconds to make a phone call" to a judge to receive approval for an abortion, adding that the state could establish an "abortion judge" who would be available 24 hours a day to rule in such cases.
While Scalia's comment brought the courtroom to laughter, some members of New Hampshire's Legislature said afterwards that they were offended by the statement.
"I thought Justice Scalia made a mockery of the case," said Lou D'Allesandro, deputy Democratic leader of the state Senate.
Ayotte maintained that a physician would not be prosecuted for performing an abortion on a minor without parental notification or judicial authorization in the "rare emergency cases" and said that her office was prepared to offer an opinion to that effect. But her opponents said they were not convinced that this was appropriate, and some of the justices seemed similarly unpersuaded.
New Hampshire state Rep. Marjorie Smith questioned what would happen when Ayotte was no longer the attorney general. She said such decisions should be made according to law, not through an opinion issued by a government office.
In his first abortion-rights case, Chief Justice John Roberts avoided questions and statements that revealed his stance on the issue, at one point suggesting that the case possibly go back to a lower court as a "pre-enforcement" suit that "would be focused on the health exemption problem and not on the statute as a whole."By Kathleen D. Tobin
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 -- With protesters from both sides assembled on the street outside, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday from New Hampshire's attorney general and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in the court's first abortion-rights case in five years.
At issue was New Hampshire's 2003 Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, which prohibits minors from obtaining an abortion until at least 48 hours after a parent or guardian has been notified.
The act waives that requirement if a judge determines that the minor is "mature and capable of giving confirmed consent" or if the minor's life is at risk. But-and this is the heart of the legal argument-it does not include an emergency health exemption if the minor's life is not at risk but she faces bodily injury if the pregnancy continues.
Justice Stephen Breyer almost immediately began firing questions about the clarity of the statute at New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who argued on behalf of the state.
What options would a physician have, Breyer asked, if a pregnant teen who faced injury from the pregnancy arrived at the medical office when a judge could not be reached and a parent had not been notified.
Ayotte said that an existing state law would protect physicians who performed abortions in this situation.
"It doesn't say that in this legislation," Breyer shot back. "It says the contrary."
According to the Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, state abortion laws must provide an explicit "health exception." Ayotte said that the judicial bypass mechanism in the bill satisfies this requirement.
"The judicial bypass provision and the death exception are constitutionally sufficient and legal means of protecting the health of a minor," Ayotte said in a written statement the day before the court hearing. The act "does not present a substantial obstacle to any woman's right to choose an abortion; instead, the act provides pregnant minors with the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice."
Other than questioning what Ayotte meant when she said that a doctor who performs an abortion without receiving a judicial approval and when the minor's parent had not been notified were "constitutionally protected," Justice David Souter, a former New Hampshire attorney general, was quiet during the hearing.
U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, joined Ayotte in defending the law, which has never been applied in the state because of an injunction imposed after its passage. Jennifer E. Dalven, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's life at risk," Dalven said. "Delaying appropriate care can be catastrophic" and lead to injuries to the liver or kidneys, stroke and infertility, among other conditions.
Justice Antonin Scalia reminded Dalven that "it takes 30 seconds to make a phone call" to a judge to receive approval for an abortion, adding that the state could establish an "abortion judge" who would be available 24 hours a day to rule in such cases.
While Scalia's comment brought the courtroom to laughter, some members of New Hampshire's Legislature said afterwards that they were offended by the statement.
"I thought Justice Scalia made a mockery of the case," said Lou D'Allesandro, deputy Democratic leader of the state Senate.
Ayotte maintained that a physician would not be prosecuted for performing an abortion on a minor without parental notification or judicial authorization in the "rare emergency cases" and said that her office was prepared to offer an opinion to that effect. But her opponents said they were not convinced that this was appropriate, and some of the justices seemed similarly unpersuaded.
New Hampshire state Rep. Marjorie Smith questioned what would happen when Ayotte was no longer the attorney general. She said such decisions should be made according to law, not through an opinion issued by a government office.
In his first abortion-rights case, Chief Justice John Roberts avoided questions and statements that revealed his stance on the issue, at one point suggesting that the case possibly go back to a lower court as a "pre-enforcement" suit that "would be focused on the health exemption problem and not on the statute as a whole."
Growing Oil Needs Spark Potential Cooperation between the United States and China
By Tara Fehr
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - As leading consumers of oil, the United States and China face friction in the global competition for that natural resource, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting Wednesday morning.
"It is time not only to recognize the similarities of our oil dependency status and the direction competition may take us, but to begin to talk more directly about this growing global competition for oil, so we can help develop national policy and cooperative international policy," Sen. Lieberman said.
According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States consumed 20.7 million barrels of oil a day in 2004, the most of any country, followed by China at 6.5 million barrels a day. In 2004 the U.S. imported 12.1 million barrels a day and China imported 2.9 million barrels a day. By 2025, the number of barrels imported by China is projected to triple.
This past year both countries have made a cooperative effort to resolve the growing energy problem, including the U.S. Department of Energy adding a new office in Beijing.
China has taken several steps to attain more energy resources: negotiating with Russia for pipelines, entering military basing agreements with countries in the Middle East, signing energy contracts with Iran and Sudan and energy contracts with Latin American countries, actions which Lieberman said would sound reasonable from a Chinese point of view.
"The U.S. has a responsibility to take its own steps to get our hunger for oil under control," Lieberman said.
And to a degree it has, according to another speaker, William Martin, a former National Security Council and Energy Department official who now chairs Washington Policy and Analysis Inc. For example, the United States is a member of the International Energy Agency, which focuses on climate change policies, market reform, energy technology collaboration and outreach to the rest of the world. China is not a member of the agency.
"If I'm China and I'm looking around the world I am terrified," Martin said.
But Lieberman said that each nation is just acting on its own national interests, which is why the countries must find alternative energy sources. Lieberman suggested that the future could include electric cars.
"We plug in our cell phones and blackberries every night, why not other things?" Lieberman asked.
Lieberman said he was hopeful that the United States will be able to cooperate with China, but was still concerned of the consequences if the countries do not.
"When both nations that are potentially combative have the opportunity to win without fighting, . fighting would be a tragic failure of foresight and leadership," Lieberman said.
###
