Category: Chad Berndtson
Dangerous Global Warming Reality Makes Passing Comprehensive Pollution Control in Washington Ever a Critical Step
WASHINGTON—On a hot July day last summer, rangers in the White Mountain National Forest sounded an alarm. Air quality had dropped to a dangerous level, and for the first time ever rangers ordered strollers, hikers and mountaineers off the trails.
The White Mountains are a prime New Hampshire scenic attraction that receive more tourists each year than Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks combined. Although that July alert was the first to ever close the mountain trails due to air quality, the same thing happened several more times last summer.
This spring, maple syrup farmers suffered. A frustrated farmer told New England Cable News on April 15 that on a scale of one to ten, he rated his sap-producing season a “four.”
A long, extremely cold winter was interspersed with days of significantly warmer temperatures, and it was all the farmer could do to salvage his sap in a “late” and “disappointing” harvest.
“The sap just didn’t run,” he said. “Without a good vacuum, the sap didn’t run. It’s that plain and simple.”
The villain in both cases: global warming. Despite the argument by some that the effects of global warming are being exaggerated, scientists agree that the Earth is growing warmer. The questions today are just how serious the problem is, what causes it and what to do about it.
The answers-for New Hampshire and the nation-are both environmentally and politically contentious.
With as many different plans to solve the problem, it seems, as there are officials hatching them, lawmakers, environmentalists and concerned citizens have looked to the White House to lead the way.
President Bush has pulled back on many environmental initiatives backed by the Clinton administration and has replaced them with his own, more business-friendly proposals. The Bush White House, for example, rejected the Kyoto treaty, a 1997 United Nations agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, Bush has offered the Clear Skies Act of 2003, which the administration says would reduce air pollution from power plants.
But many environmental groups in New England and the rest of the nation have called the Clear Skies legislation a “half-baked” approach to the growing danger from global warming and have demanded a stronger plan of attack. Moreover, New Hampshire’s two Republican senators have announced their opposition to the bill.
In January the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., released the latest findings from its round-the-clock climate tracking software: 2002 was the second-hottest year on record in the United States, and the rising temperatures are not occurring only when the sun is out.
Jan Pendlebury, the New Hampshire director of the National Environmental Trust, said in an interview that nighttime temperatures are rising three times faster than daytime ones. What’s more, she said, the diurnal balance-colder nights than days-is being skewed, to the detriment of the state’s fall foliage display.
“Foliage relies on very cold nights and very warm days,” Pendlebury said. “If you don’t have that balance, then the chemical reactions needed to change colors in the leaves will not occur.”
Over the last century, according to the National Environmental Trust, the average surface temperature of the Earth has risen by a full degree Fahrenheit. And the federal government’s National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, an annual report on climate change, flatly states that temperatures in the United States are rising, and that the average increase will be “much greater than one degree” over the next century. “These changes will, at a minimum, increase discomfort,” the report adds.
Melting ice caps always have been one of the most visual symbols associated with global warming. But what of coastal flooding? What of some inland areas that become so hot that they turn into breeding grounds for tropical diseases? What if heightened temperatures mean no more skiing or hiking in New Hampshire-no fresh snow and air too deadly to breathe?
Entire ecosystems may be at risk. A recent article in the environmental science journal Nature suggested that radical temperature changes are enough to dramatically alter wildlife landscapes. If global warming is allowed to progress at its current rate, New England would gradually lose its classic fall foliage over the next few decades. Only plants tolerant of such high temperatures would flourish.
Global warming also dynamically increases air pollution, because warmer air traps pollutants closer to the Earth’s surface and creates the kind of unhealthy breathing conditions experienced last summer in New Hampshire-while increasing ozone, the main ingredient in smog.
A recent New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services bulletin warned that the ozone season came earlier than usual to New Hampshire this year, with unusually warm weather and higher levels of air pollution than ever before.
“We have been tracking ozone levels in New Hampshire for over 20 years,” DES acting commissioner Robert Monaco said in a statement. “April 15 is the earliest date that we have ever seen levels approaching unhealthy levels.”
Global warming also is becoming as much an economic burden as an environmental one. A report from Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change contends that though the United States could “probably bear” the cost of fighting the effects of global warming, poorer nations could not. The report concludes that measures need to be taken to stave off a long-term environmental disaster and an international crisis.
If global warming intensifies, New Hampshire could watch jobs and industry disintegrate as fast as its shoreline. Who would be hired to operate ski lifts at Loon Mountain if there are patches of grass where there should be snow? How safe is tourism-New Hampshire’s second-largest industry-if it is unsafe to breathe the air in the White Mountains?
The fishing industry also would suffer. Brook trout and other coldwater fish can reproduce only in certain temperatures. If the air and the water are too warm, they won’t survive.
Global warming also melts glaciers, and raises the level of water in the ocean. That threatens drinking water.
“If the oceans rise,” Pendlebury said, “the entire drinking-water supply of the seacoast region is threatened.”
Insurance companies, which offer coverage for homes and businesses on the coast, acknowledge the global warming problem as a “very real threat.” The international firm Munich Reinsurance published a report on its Web site in January estimating that by 2050, the countries of the world will collectively have to spend $300 billion a year to stave off damages to seacoasts and shorelines caused by global warming.
The Bush administration’s Clear Skies proposal targets three of the most dangerous pollutants: emissions from electric power plants of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury. But it includes no provisions for curbing a fourth pollution, carbon dioxide.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports on its Web site that by 2018, Clear Skies would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent, nitrogen oxide emissions by 67 percent and mercury emissions by 69 percent from 2000 levels.
The proposal, the EPA said, also would “reduce nitrogen loads to the Chesapeake Bay and other waters along the East and Gulf coasts, help lakes, streams and forests recover from acid rain damage and reduce mercury in the environment.”
Clear Skies, according to the administration, would provide the smoothest possible transition for power plants to meet emissions regulations without breaking the bank. The program employs a “cap and trade” system that would set specific limits on allowable levels of emissions while permitting polluters to purchase credits from other power plants that have met emissions-reduction requirements.
“This country should be very proud of the progress we have made in cleaning up our air,” EPA administrator Christie Whitman testified to a Senate subcommittee April 8. “Clear Skies is the most important next step we can take to address all challenges and achieve a clean environment for all Americans.”
But several lawmakers, environmentalists and advocacy groups have lambasted the Clear Skies legislation, saying the plan is fundamentally flawed because it ignores carbon dioxide, which many consider the most significant contributor to global warming. They also say that the bill’s “loose” regulations – permitting power plants to trade credits — would allow the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants to remain dirty.
Both of New Hampshire’s senators, Judd Gregg and John Sununu, have uncharacteristically broken with the GOP over Clear Skies. Gregg has pushed counter-legislation that would maintain the cap-and-trade approach while adding carbon dioxide to the regulatory plan.
Gregg’s Clean Air Planning Act of 2003 builds upon a program already active in New Hampshire that requires reductions on pollutants. It also calls on the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to provide specific and accurate local air-quality forecasts.
“Legislation that sets unrealistic limits on energy production or that fails to bring about noticeable change in air pollution is both ineffective and serves to only amplify the problem,” Gregg said in a statement.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) have proposed another bill, the Clean Power Act, which has more stringent regulations. Collins said Clear Skies does “too little” and “leaves too much to chance.”
“Maine is tired of being at the end of the exhaust pipe,” Collins said in a February press conference. She reiterated her opposition to Clear Skies in a recent interview, saying that ignoring carbon dioxide would be a “fatal error” and that any environmental plan that becomes law needs to be detailed and comprehensive.
“This [legislation] sends a powerful message to those who would pollute our air: your days are numbered,” Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said in a statement. Snowe backs the Collins-Jeffords plan, and she has said that while Clear Skies is a step in the right direction, it would not go far enough, especially in New England.
Environmentalists have lauded the alternatives to Bush’s Clear Skies proposal.
“Holding our breath is not the solution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, much to the chagrin of the Bush administration,” Pendlebury said. “Study after government-funded study confirm the fact that climate change is occurring more swiftly than previously thought, with some of the worst impacts expected to affect the Northeast.”
The Clear Skies initiative,” she said, “promises to deliver anything but clear skies to New Hampshire. The name alone diminishes the intelligence of the American public.”
Other environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and the National Environmental Trust, have taken the EPA and administrator Whitman to task for supporting the Clear Skies plan.
In defense of the proposal, Robert Varney, a regional administrator for the EPA’s New England office, wrote in an opinion piece in April 10 Foster’s Daily Democrat that Clear Skies offered the best way to reduce the power plant emissions that contribute to global warming.
“No legislative proposal on the environment will please everyone,” he wrote. “Some believe Clear Skies goes too far; others believe it does not go far enough. Honest debate, negotiation and compromise are part of the legislative process. At the same time, we must be careful to avoid gridlock in Congress.”
Environmental issues remain hotly contested in Congress, and many lawmakers and experts on the topic say one hurdle is reminding the American public that global warming is real and growing worse every year.
“But there are actually a lot of good things happening,” according to Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Washington. In a recent press conference in Wisconsin, she lauded bipartisan efforts in Congress and the initiatives taken by some states, including New Hampshire, to combat the negative effects of global warming.
Claussen said a “second industrial revolution” is needed, with 21st century technology used to create a climate-friendly energy and environmental future for the United States.
“The idea is to think ahead to where we need to be 50 years from now if we’re going to meet the challenge of climate change, and then figure out decade by decade how to do it,” she said. “The overwhelming consensus is that to be most effective, action against climate change has to begin right now.”
The immediate action needed, environmentalists say, is for the administration to attack the problems of global warming and environmental pollution head on and for Congress to agree on a plan that is thorough, far-reaching and realistic.
“People come to [New Hampshire] because it’s clean, they come because it’s healthy, they come to enjoy the outdoors and because New Hampshire has such a diverse geography,” Pendlebury said. “You can hike, you can fish, you can go to the beach, you can find yourself at a cultural, commercial epicenter like Portsmouth or Manchester. [Global warming] is a serious environmental threat that’s coming from all sides. The time to act is now so we don’t pay dearly later.”
Published in Foster’s Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
John Sununu: The First 100 Days
WASHINGTON—Although serving his first term as a U.S. Senator, the term "freshman" doesn't seem to fit John Sununu (R-N.H.). After all, he's no stranger to Washington.
Sununu served in the House of Representatives for three consecutive terms before being elected to the Senate in November. His Senate committee assignments, which he describes as "action packed," include seats on the Foreign Relations, Commerce and Banking committees, at the center of some of the most important issues facing the country: national security, the war on terrorism, and economic recovery.
In a session of Congress that has featured conflict and partisan bickering over a host of issues both domestic and foreign, Sununu is excited and motivated by being at the center of the action during his first 100 days.
"What's the most rewarding thing about being in the 108th? That I'm a member of it!" he exclaims with a chuckle. "It's a tough question, especially given the historic time that we've had as a new Congress. As an American, there's nothing more rewarding than what comes from the pride of watching service members in Iraq do their work so successfully."
Sununu has gained a reputation as an up-and-comer: high praise from Congressmen and pundits alike who watched his hard fought campaign against former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen last year. What followed was a media blitz that brought him a lot of national attention, and set up his emergence in the 108th Congress as a determined, focused member of the Senate.
Transitioning from the House to the Senate has forced him to make "big adjustments" in both priorities and time management. Senators have full committee agendas five days a week whereas in the House, he said, a lot of work is wrapped up in the middle of the week so that members can spend as much time as possible in their home districts.
But Sununu said he has not felt dogged by the transition, because he's largely been able to apply the same ideas of "adopting a pace and a discipline for time management" that aided him during his first months at the House.
"No, it hasn't been difficult, it's been exciting, it's been very rewarding and it's even been fun," he said. "It's been an exciting and historic time to be a member of Congress, to say the least. Coming in as I did, regaining the majority … it was seeing the excitement and enthusiasm being carried in the entire Republican conference."
Sununu brings to his new job both enthusiasm and determination. He is a dynamic speaker on the Senate floor, sharp-tongued and unafraid to challenge his opposition. He is an ardent supporter both of the administration's tax cut plan, and what he calls President Bush's "steadfast leadership."
"Leadership is taking tough issues head on and putting forward bold initiatives to get the job done," Sununu said. It is a value, he maintains, that has always been important in his family, the Bush family, and in Washington.
Of course, it definitely doesn't hurt that the Sununu name has been established in Washington for decades (Sununu's father served as both governor of New Hampshire and then as White House chief of staff under President George H. Bush), and that Sununu first forged a now integral relationship with the current president while visiting the Bush family in Kennebunkport, Maine, more than 20 years ago.
"We share some core values - of limited but effective government, low taxes, local control personal responsibility - so on a lot of issues, we're likely to agree," he said.
Bush was a visible presence during Sununu's 2002 campaign and came to New Hampshire twice to show his support. According to Sununu, Bush's visit helped draw voters' attention to his campaign and the issues he was stressing: strong homeland security policies, economic growth, and support of New Hampshire's small businesses.
"Having the President visiting the state helps to get voters more focused on the election and the campaign, and if you take advantage of that, you're able to connect with them," Sununu said in an interview in early March.
Sununu said that one of the most important things to keep in mind when entering Congress is building relationships with other members and also Capitol staff. "Personal relationships are extremely helpful in persuading your colleagues to support your issues," he said.
He has been able to maintain many of the relationships he forged as a House member. The transition, he said, has been easier because he can relate to other members, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), with whom he served in the House. Like Sununu, Graham also won election to the Senate in November.
"It's always nice to go through a process like this with people you know, share your ideas and thoughts, and work together to find out and unravel the mysteries of the Senate," he said.
Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.), himself a fourth term House member, worked closely with Sununu in the House Budget Committee and said he recalls Sununu's tenacity and determination.
"During his years in the House, Senator Sununu distinguished himself as a highly intelligent, thoughtful, and well prepared lawmaker," Bass said in an interview. "These same skills appear to be serving him well in the Senate, where he has gotten rave reviews for his command of Senate floor procedures. I have enjoyed working with him in both capacities on issues important to the people of New Hampshire."
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H) concurred, saying in a statement that he looks forward to further legislative endeavors with his fellow New Hampshire Senator.
One of Sununu's major focuses has always been national security, and he's been very supportive of the steps the Bush administration has taken including engaging Saddam Hussein's regime in war. He called watching troops enter downtown Baghdad and assist Iraqis a "phenomenal moment."
"There really aren't that many moments that you watch and recognize their historic importance at the same time," he said. "Oftentimes we'll look back and say to ourselves, well, that was a really historic moment or special time, but event like these you recognize their importance then and there."
Sununu said that he watched the U.S. marines and Iraqis jointly felling the statue of Saddam Hussein and it moved him much like watching the Berlin Wall come down.
"Those events are few and far between," he added. "To see the excitement and jubilation was exciting, but even more important, I've been enormously impressed with the professionalism and commitment of the men and women in the service."
Sununu has a lengthy list of priorities over the next year relevant to both the nation and to New Hampshire, including veterans' health care, a transportation bill "that treats New Hampshire equitably," and increased funding for special education.
Sununu says he is determined, especially over the next 100 days, to follow his own advice about being an effective player in Congress.
"It's really about getting yourself plugged in, and saying to yourself: how do I want to influence policy? What kind of an approach and what kind of a legislator do I want to be?"
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Maine’s Moderate Republican Senators Stand By Centrist Position
WASHINGTON—Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine always have been considered "moderate" Republicans who at times disagree with their more conservative Senate colleagues. But since the start of the 108th Congress in January, so closely divided that the Republicans have a mere two-vote majority, Snowe and Collins along with a small group of centrist Republicans have gained the considerable power to determine the outcome of Senate votes.
The centrist Republicans-- Snowe, Collins, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, John McCain of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota-add an element of drama and unpredictability to many Senate votes and were largely responsible for slashing President Bush's proposed tax cut.
The Republican moderates have wielded a significant amount of power since the GOP took control of the chamber this year. Because Republicans have a razor-thin majority - there are 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent - and because they usually need 60 votes just to get a bill to the Senate floor, the centrists easily can derail legislation or have a significant impact on its content.
Along with Voinovich and Chafee, Snowe joined Senate Democrats in voting 51-48 to halve Bush's proposed $726 billion tax cut to $350 billion. Though criticized by her Republican colleagues for breaking with the party, Snowe has stood her ground, maintaining that the $350 billion was a good compromise and would do much to "cushion the cost of the war" in Iraq.
Snowe, who chairs the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee and is also a member of the Senate Commerce and Finance committees, declined to be interviewed for this article. Her spokesman, Dave Lackey, said siding with the other party "can be difficult sometimes….But the ultimate goal is to lead from the middle to pass legislation that makes a difference for the American people."
He said Snowe was concerned the larger tax cut would lead to a double-dip recession and a slow economic recovery. The senator sees the smaller tax cut as a short-term stimulus that would "encourage growth in the economy without ballooning long-term federal deficits."
Snowe has come under considerable pressure from fellow Republicans - including Bush and Vice President Cheney - as well as from conservative journalists. Bush and Cheney called Snowe and Voinovich into the Oval Office last week, in an attempt to change their minds on the tax cuts. A Wall Street Journal editorial, meanwhile, called the three who sided with Democrats "Daschle Republicans," referring to Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D.-S.D.).
Sen. John Breaux, a moderate Louisiana Democrat and one of the tailors of the $350 billion compromise in the Senate, praised Snowe for holding her ground.
"A lot of people were not able to resist the pressure she was under, with calls from the president and vice president," Breaux said in a statement. "By sticking together, it shows how you can be vital and influential."
Collins, who had previously been critical of the size of the tax cut, eventually voted for Bush's $726 billion tax proposal, saying it was impossible to determine how to stimulate the economy without seeing what effect the war in Iraq will have.
Collins, who chairs the Governmental Affairs Committee, also was not available for an interview. Collins said in a statement that she felt that her centrist colleagues are not "wedded to a specific ideology" and that allows them to forge consensus by working with members on both sides of the aisle.
Aides to both Snowe and Collins said the senators look for ways to make Congress work efficiently, and that "leading from the middle"-that is, being a moderate force in the Senate-is one way to do so.
"Sen. Snowe is one who has always believed in the philosophy of making government work," Lackey said. "There are probably as many economic plans and ideas as there are senators in Congress, but at the end of the day, she would like to see one that reflects the majority of the Senate, that will keep Congress on a prudent course."
Stephen Hess, an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said the power yielded by the moderate Republicans is "true of course, but it is also a power to be used awfully cautiously."
Republican moderates are using their newfound power "very gingerly," Hess said, "but it is definitely happening."
President Bush certainly is not happy when fellow Republicans vote against him and
Hess said that Bush is a "president who knows how to crack the whip." But, he added, Bush also needs to know how to "treat moderate Republicans with more sensitivity" in order to win them over.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Jeb Bradley: The First 100 Days
WASHINGTON—As Rep. Jeb Bradley returns to his office after a long day on the House floor, a man is climbing on his furniture.
One of Bradley's aides is supporting this well-tailored individual with a single hand on his back, as the visitor tries to balance on a burgundy leather couch, above which there hangs an enormous relief map of New Hampshire.
"I can't pinpoint quite where the dividing line is," the man says to the staff member, who is struggling to help him see where New Hampshire's first district begins and ends so the visitor can determine whether he is one of Bradley's constituents.
"Can I help you?" Bradley asks, suddenly a presence in the doorway.
"My name's Jeb Bradley. How can I help you today?" he says, extending a hand to the man, who comes down from the couch.
Bradley smiles and gives his attention to the visitor, who seems first surprised and then warmed by the exchange.
Whatever tension the awkward meeting could have produced vanishes. But that's really no surprise.
A tension-filled atmosphere has no place in Jeb Bradley's office, and a tense reception is the last thing you could ever expect from the freshman Congressman himself, who, although he will mark his first 100 days in Congress on April 17, is already gaining a reputation as an approachable, straight-shooting representative.
Bradley has been on the House floor and running around to appointments all day, and in the little downtime he has available he and his staff have been glued to the television. It is a historic day: the news media keep replaying shots of U.S. marines and Iraqis tearing down the large statue of Saddam Hussein in downtown Baghdad. Everyone in the room shares a silent frisson over the image, history in the making.
"You picked a good day to come in," he says to a visiting reporter as the statue falls on screen for the umpteenth time that day. "This is a historic day, and watching the people of Iraq reclaim their country is really very invigorating. I had chills going up my spine watching this process."
Asked to sum up his first 100 days in office, he gestures again toward the television screen.
"For me, I guess, the first 100 really culminate today," he says. "The liberation of Baghdad has occurred, there's still going to be military action, yes, but we're going to be able to start rebuilding, and the Iraqi people will take back control of their government. I'm pretty happy about where we are."
Bradley's first 100 days as a member of Congress have been no routine affair and have literally involved life and death issues. In just three months, the United States has waged war in Iraq and there have been dramatic partisan clashes on a number of major issues.
Bradley asserts that adjusting to his new job in such a climate has not been easy, but says he's grateful for the opportunity to serve New Hampshire. Bradley talks of his commitment to keeping up what he calls "his end of the bargain with the people of New Hampshire."
He says that he has received a lot of help from New Hampshire's other Congressmen, Rep. Charlie Bass and Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu. "They've all been there," he says. "They know what this is like." He also draws upon his years of experience in
the New Hampshire Legislature to ease the transition.
"There are a lot of procedural differences between the New Hampshire legislature and Congress, and I have to learn a lot of procedural nuances," he says. "Going from being a chairman of a legislative committee to the new kid on the block is a major adjustment."
It's not having too many expectations about the job, he says, that have kept him from getting overwhelmed.
"I've told a lot of people this. I focused so much on issues and the campaign and the process of getting elected that even though I think I've hit the ground running and ready to go, I didn't have too many expectations about what it was going to be like," he says. "I came here ready to absorb as much as I could, and I came really with an open mind."
Bradley is a firm believer in the adage "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it," and by keeping that in mind, he has tried not to get bogged down in the process of being a new Congressman and to stay focused on the issues important to him and enjoy the job.
"There's really no key, there's no secret, no single answer that helps you automatically be effective in the House or the Senate," Sununu, who has been a senator only since January but had three terms in the House before this year, said in an interview
Sununu stressed learning rules and procedure early, so that "once you understand the process you can decide how you want to be effective for your state. "Every member of Congress has to go through the process of figuring out how they want to influence and shape policy and decide what kind of a legislator they want to be."
When Sununu was a freshman in the House in 1997, he said, a combination of learning the procedure and forging relationships not only with congressional colleagues but also with Capitol Hill staff helped him.
Bradley says he has spent much time "doing his homework" and not getting up in the House just to make big speeches. "There'll come a day for that," he says.
Nevertheless, he says, his "thrilling" first months have been punctuated by such highlights as being part of the 215-212 vote on President Bush's tax cut proposal and presiding at one of the House's after-hours sessions weeks ago.
"I think in a lot of ways it's the House that's setting the agenda in Congress," he says, "and the Senate that's reacting to it," citing the recent House passage of Bush's budget. "I don't see it as anything where the House plays second fiddle at all."
Bradley says his top legislative priorities over the next year are securing homeland security, getting the economy back on track and providing affordable health care. He is determined, he says, to keep a clear focus and not be thwarted by the process and by partisan bickering.
"Jeb came to Congress with a lot more experience, at least that I can remember, than either of his two predecessors," Bass said in an interview. "He really understands how to be effective, not to expect certain things and how to work with people. Some Congressmen get paranoid or pretentious about asking advice, but not Jeb; he's happy to ask it and happy to receive it."
Bradley says he tries to let "the facts determine the situation, and I guess that's always been the way I've tried to judge each issue: based on facts, not emotions."
It's a strategy he also applies in dealing with any worries about the pressure of getting re-elected every two years.
"I wouldn't call it pressure," Bradley says. "It's part of the job, and while it's tougher for members, it's good for the country, and that's first and foremost why we're here. Again, be careful what you wish for…."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Gregg Moves Against Administration With Air Pollutant Legislation
WASHINGTON—Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) introduced environmental legislation on Wednesday that he said would aggressively reduce harmful emissions of pollutants from the nation's power plants. This marks the second time in three months that Gregg has taken on the Bush administration's "Clear Skies" initiative on air pollutants.
The Clean Air Planning Act of 2003, which Gregg co-sponsored with Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), involves a "cap and trade" approach, which sets caps on overall emissions of the four major pollutants-carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury-but gives power plants the flexibility to choose the most effective way to meet those caps. For example, they can purchase "credits" from other companies whose emission levels are beneath the cap.
"New England and the Northeast have long suffered as the 'tailpipe' of the nation when it comes to air pollution and its detrimental effects on our environment," Gregg said in a statement. "This bill follows the lead set by the state of New Hampshire by setting significant reductions in the overall output of pollutants into our air, including mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide."
The "cap and trade" approach has proven successful for acid rain programs, Gregg said, and is also "market-friendly" because it minimizes the cost of complying with the regulations.
Gregg's bill also calls on federal environmental agencies to provide specific local air quality forecasts nationwide. Gregg has already secured $6 million over the last two years for the development of this program in New Hampshire, which is expected to become operational in 2004.
Environmental groups have lauded Gregg for taking a stand against President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative, which they say is inadequate because of "loose regulations" and the fact that it does not include carbon dioxide, which is the number one pollutant associated with global warming.
"Gregg co-sponsoring the [bill] shows the disconnect between what the Bush administration has offered, which totally ignores C02, and mainstream public opinion on the need to clean up the oldest and dirtiest power plants, including dealing with global warming," Jan Pendlebury, director of the New Hampshire State Environmental Trust, said in an interview.
Pendlebury said that the Environmental Trust and other environmental groups intend to draft a strong plan that will head off the problem of harmful emissions from power plants. It needs to be done, she said, to reduce air pollution and to deal with the ever-growing environmental threat posed by global warming.
"There are not too many people in mainstream America that do not believe global warming is a problem," Pendlebury said. "The science has come out [on it], there is no dispute that this is happening and mainstream America believes it's happening, and Sen. Gregg understands that and has rebuked the president's plan."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Gregg Moves Smallpox Compensation Bill to Senate Floor Despite Heavy Criticism
WASHINGTON—Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) successfully moved his smallpox vaccine compensation package through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Wednesday by a vote of 11-10, despite scathing criticism led by the committee's senior Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Gregg's bill would encourage health-care workers and other first responders to get smallpox vaccines by ensuring them compensation for any injuries or side effects. The smallpox vaccine, said Gregg, is one of the most reliable ways to protect the United States from the threat of a biological terror attack.
"This is not a legal issue. This is not a health issue. This is a national security issue," Gregg said. "We are at war. We have a fundamental obligation as members of the Senate to put our differences aside and work together to make sure the American people are protected from the worst our enemies can do. The passage of this legislation is vital to the safety of the American people."
Kennedy blasted Gregg's plan, saying the flat compensation payment of $262,000 a year is "heartlessly inadequate." He said there should be no caps on compensation for lost wages and medical expenses. and said Gregg's bill failed to adequately compensate victims of minor injuries.
Kennedy said some states already have ended vaccination programs because the current system is "a disaster." The White House has urged thousands of health-care workers and other first responders, including firefighters and police officers, to get the vaccines.
"This is a 'tin cup' response to a major health threat and I think it insults the first responders in this country," Kennedy said.
Gregg fired back, calling Kennedy's statistics "flawed," and saying that his plan was "a genuine attempt to address the issue."
"Today, anybody who gets vaccinated … gets nothing," he said. "And that's the way it's going to be until we pass this bill."
Smallpox vaccination programs have come under harsh criticism since they began in early February. . Both Illinois and New York halted the vaccines after three people suffered fatal heart attacks soon after being inoculated. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon is one of the latest health facilities to stop giving the vaccines.
The House of Representatives killed a similar bill Monday, as 21 Republicans sided with Democrats to vote against it. Both of New Hampshire's Republican Reps., Jeb Bradley and Charlie Bass, voted in favor of the bill.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
NH and Maine Senators Join to Push for USS Thresher Memorial
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Senate unanimously adopted a resolution Tuesday night marking the 40th anniversary of the loss of the USS Thresher, a pioneering nuclear submarine that sank to the bottom of the Atlantic on April 10, 1963, killing 96 Navy sailors, 16 officers and 17 employees of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
New Hampshire Sens. Judd Gregg (R) and John Sununu (R) and Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R), who sponsored the resolution, said Wednesday they would introduce legislation next week to build a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., in honor of the 129 people who died on the Thresher and in the rest of America's nuclear submarine program..
"The loss of the Thresher was an enormous tragedy for the U.S. submarine service, for the Navy, and for the nation," Sununu said in a statement. "Yet from this tragedy, the Navy learned important lessons about submarine safety and acted to improve designs and to prevent engineering and design flaws on future submarines."
Sununu said the crew's "ultimate sacrifice" helped improve the nation's defense system.
Thresher was launched in Kittery at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 1960. It was one of the first of a new class of submarine for the Navy: deep-diving, fast-attack crafts that boasted many innovative features, such as a sound silencing system, a large bow-mounted sonar and a hydro-dynamically streamlined body. The Thresher failed to resurface during a deep-sea diving trial, but the Navy never determined the reason.
Snowe said in a statement that the loss of Thresher led to the creation of the SubSafe program, which strengthened regulations on hull integrity and pressure-related components for submarines. It also prompted the establishment of additional training for engineers studying submarines and ocean dynamics. Since the advent of these programs, Snowe said, not a single U.S. submarine has been lost under similar circumstances.
"Our nation owes a great debt to the 129 men of the USS Thresher, years, and to the civilians who have accepted the risk and sacrificed alongside their submarine shipmates," Snowe said. "It is an entirely appropriate time for us to acknowledge the loss … and express our gratitude for their sacrifice."
Gregg, in a separate statement, said, "This measure we introduced recognizes the courage and bravery these men demonstrated in risking their lives in the development of the United States Navy's submarine program, a program which has proven invaluable to the American military.".
New Hampshire Rep. Jeb Bradley (R) said he will introduce similar legislation in the House of Representatives.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Both Sununu and Bradley Won More With Less in 2002 Election
WASHINGTON—Both of New Hampshire's freshman Congressmen, Sen. John Sununu (R) and Rep. Jeb Bradley (R), spent and received less money than their losing opponents in the 2002 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) in Washington.
The CRP's Web site, www.opensecrets.org, shows that Bradley raised $1.01 million in the 2001-02 election cycle and spent $983,450, while his opponent, Democrat Martha Fuller Clark, raised and spent more than $3.5 million. Bradley defeated Clark in November with 58 percent of the vote.
Sununu raised over $3.73 million and spent over $3.67 million in what became one of the tightest Senate races in the country, defeating former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen with 51 percent of the vote. Shaheen both raised and spent more than $5.8 million during the campaign.
"It's not about money. It's about people and ideas," Sununu's communications director, Barbara Riley, said in a statement. "Sen. Sununu ran a town-to-town, person-to-person, grass-roots campaign. We may have been out-spent, but we were never out-thought"
Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.) ran successfully for reelection last year. Like Sununu and Bradley, he received less and spent less than his challenger, Katrina Swett.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) who will not be up for re-election until 2004, received $277,763, according to the CRP Web site.
Both Bradley and Sununu received campaign money from a range of individual donors, companies and political action committees (PACs), which are groups of individuals who pool their money under one common concern, such as the name of an employer, union, or interest group. Campaign finance laws limit PAC contributions to a candidate to $10,000 per election cycle.
Sununu received over $1.56 million from PACs (42 percent of his overall receipts), while Bradley received $369,338 (37 percent).
One of the largest PAC contributors to the New Hampshire campaigns was telecommunications company Verizon, which gave Bradley $10,000, according to the CRP. Verizon also contributed $2,500 to Gregg in 2001-02.
SBC Communications, another major PAC contributor, gave Bradley $3,000. An SBC spokeswoman said in an interview that the company values and supports members-"like New Hampshire's"--with an "intellectual command of how our industry works."
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) shows that Bradley is working to pay back $309,000 in personal loans he took out during the campaign and that the campaign itself is more than $33,000 in debt.
Bradley said in an interview that he is working on paying back his loan and removing the campaign debt, and cites the reason for both was that was a first-time candidate for the House.
He hosted a clambake fundraiser on March 13 in New England, saying that he was "getting a head start." The Nashua Telegraph reported that Bradley raised over $25,000 at the event.
Bass, noting that he was outspent by his opponent, said one thing candidates learn in an election is that winning comes from saying what you mean and how well you communicate your message.
"Money doesn't win elections. Votes win elections," he said.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Watching the Pall Give Way to Reality of the Situation
WASHINGTON—I received a phone call from a good friend nearly an hour after President Bush had appeared on television last Wednesday night and officially announced that yes, military strikes in Iraq had begun.
"Happy war!" my buddy shouted sardonically into the phone.
The start of the war and the tension-filled weeks that led up to it ignited a spark: the TVs went on, the protesters got louder and more passionate, the war supporters cheered Bush's decisive rhetoric as if he were Wyatt Earp setting out to round up outlaws. Passion on all sides of the issue dominated, and the sights and sounds of "shock and awe," which itself became a national buzz phrase overnight, gave the feeling that the allied attacks on Iraq were full speed ahead, and minor roadblocks weren't going to deter us from ousting Saddam Hussein with lightning speed.
A Senate press secretary on Capitol Hill sent me a link to a Web site in which internationally recognized symbols, such as a downed telephone wire with sparks around it indicating an electrical danger, were reinterpreted with darkly humored and more literal interpretations relative to destruction in Iraq. "And to think," my contact wrote along with the link, "they really thought it would be tough."
But I woke up this morning feeling that the full speed train had slowed, that the initial encouragement and optimism of a war that would end quickly is waning, and the reality of the situation is emerging.
There's a disconcerting pall in Washington now, the type that has slowly but surely weakened morale and cleared away all of the initial passion to reveal a numb, colder reality that yes, we are living life during wartime.
I haven't been getting the phone calls this week, the ones that sardonically joke about our strikes in the Middle East and result in verbal high fives about how quickly we're "kickin a-in Iraq." No, the phone calls now stick to things like, "Didja hear about that marine helicopter that went down? Man, I really felt for that soldier's mother on TV" and "So maybe it won't be so easy, eh?" It's a strange feeling, not easy to grasp, but one that is stifling morale more every day. Even my girlfriend--who had joined the steadfast ranks of the TV-glued for most of last week--this week could only manage a simple but undeniably wishful, "So, will it be over soon?"
On my way to Capitol Hill almost every day for the past month, I'd seen a man accosting everyone within a ten-foot radius with fiery rhetoric and angry denunciations of President Bush's foreign policy stance.
On the morning after the President's speech I walked in the man's direction to see if he was any more vehement now that war had begun. When I came close enough to hear what he was saying, he suddenly lurched forward and tagged my shoulder with a large, circular "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" sticker, the type you tend to see on every signpost and subway wall in Washington.
I recoiled in surprise, tore the sticker off and scowled at the man, asking him, "Hey, what are you doing? Get off me!" He relented quickly, touched my shoulder and said amid gritted teeth, "Brother, I'm sorry. I'm just pissed, man!"
Remembering that encounter, I went to the Hill this morning to find the angry stranger and walked next to him again, readying myself for another sticker strike. But he said nothing today, merely looking around Union Station, muttering "peace…peace…" and waving a large sign with the international peace symbol on it. It was clear to me that he, too, feels the pall.
It's not obvious, but it's in the air. The Senate press secretary does not have any more humorous Web sites for me, rather, messages about how he "just wanted to move on, already" and was in his office reading war intelligence reports and crafting statements for his boss about the casualties suffered by U.S. soldiers thus far.
Walking around the Capitol produces a similar effect: business is still going "as usual," but all initial encouragement over the supposed speed of the war has subsided into a sort of emotional limbo. "I don't know how I feel," said one press secretary I talked to this morning. "Somebody let the air out of this thing."
Yeah, reality did.
It's harder this week, much harder, to smile and to be optimistic. My mood had significantly relaxed after the initial strikes with the notion that we were moving forward, that Saddam Hussein was on the run and that this war would be wrapped up before my semester in Washington is finished at the end of April.
But I'm not so relaxed and not so optimistic today. As reality creeps in and the pall builds, "shock and awe" has become "shucks n' aww."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
N.H. and Maine Members Support Bush’s War Funding; Caution Budget Implications
WASHINGTON—Members of Congress from New Hampshire and Maine agreed that President Bush's supplemental budget request Tuesday for $74.4 billion in war funds was a necessary one, despite conflicting opinions over the effect such spending could have on the president's fiscal 2004 budget. But one of Maine's Republican Senators broke party ranks in voting to cut the president's tax cut proposal in half, in part because of her concern about the costs of the war in Iraq.
Bush on Tuesday morning called on Congress to act "quickly and responsibly" and said the emergency spending request is "directly related to winning this war." His plan covers a six-month period and includes spending for the Defense Department, the rebuilding of postwar Iraq, U.S. allies and homeland security.
"I think the president's package is a very strong one … and, I think, a common sense package," Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) said Tuesday in an interview. "This spending is needed now."
Sununu noted that the funds are being sought on an emergency basis for the current fiscal year and said that the president's proposed budget for next year is sufficient to address "any recurring costs." Both Sununu and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) support Bush's budget.
"Should additional funding be necessary, I will continue to make sure our brave men and women of our armed forces have the resources they need to be successful in Iraq," Gregg said in a statement.
On Tuesday, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and two other Republicans joined with Senate Democrats in a 51-48 vote to reduce Bush's proposed 10-year tax cut from $726 billion to $350 billion. The difference in the size of the tax cut, according to Snowe's press secretary, Dave Lackey, could do much "to cushion the size of the war cost."
"The president's request puts a figure on the cost of the war, but clearly it's an estimate, and much depends on precisely what happens during this process," Lackey said in an interview. "[Sen.] Snowe wants our military commanders to know they have the resources right now."
Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) said that he supports the war package to "support our allies and our troops" and has "no doubt it will pass," but implementing Bush's sizeable tax cut at the same time spending is rising because of the war would be "destructive."
"To do massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans when we're at war is crazy," Allen said in an interview. "It's clear, absolutely clear, that further tax cuts are the administration's priority."
"We need to throw out [this] budget, and do one that's realistic and prudent … at a time when we're running up hundreds of billions of dollars for a war," he added, saying that Bush's budget made "no sense" and would put the country "in a financial hole that will take decades to climb out of."
On Friday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was one of three Republicans to support an amendment to the budget resolution that would have trimmed the proposed tax cut by $100 billion to help pay for the war in Iraq. But she voted against the successful effort Tuesday to trim the cut by more than half.
"Originally, the budget didn't include any funding for the war, so establishing this reserve fund was essential to drawing a realistic blueprint for the expenditures our nation will have to make in the near future," Collins said in a statement.
As to the more drastic rollback of the proposed tax cuts, she said that the economic impact of the war would need to be seen before making an appropriate budget decision.
In an interview, Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) said of the president's supplemental budget request, "I think the thing to remember is that while there is some deficit spending in this proposal these are unprecedented times: a recession at the same time as the war on terror."
He focused on two major concerns--"The security of the American people and also getting the economy back on track"-and to not act in such a way that would deviate from those two fundamental goals.
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
