Category: Daniel Remin
Title IX: A Look at a Law Most New Hampshire Officials Support
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — It’s a simple law
But 31 years after President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law, Title IX is mired in controversy.
Both supporters and detractors of the law agree it has succeeded in opening high school and college sports to women, who now join teams in numbers far greater than before.
However, college wrestling coaches and others charge that Title IX has had the reverse effect of discriminating against men by forcing many schools, including the University of New Hampshire, to cut men’s teams. They want the Bush administration to ease enforcement of the law.
In 1997, UNH cut men’s baseball, men’s lacrosse and men’s and women’s golf both in an effort to comply with Title IX and because of budget constraints, according to a UNH athletic administrator.
But the Wildcats’ athletic director, Marty Scarano, who has been at UNH since 2000, said he supports the law.
“I would not have agreed with any rash change that put more leniency in the teeth of Title IX,” he said. “I think Title IX’s been the right thing. I don’t think necessarily it’s been interpreted the right way.”
The debate centers around U.S. Department of Education guidelines for universities attempting to comply with the law and the questions over how it might be changed to make it more equitable.
The legislation prohibits discrimination in all educational programs and departments, but athletics is where Title IX has had the largest and most visible impact and caused the greatest controversy.
Perhaps at no other time since Title IX was enacted in 1972 has it received so much attention than in the past year.
Last year, following complaints by groups of national wrestling coaches, President Bush appointed a commission to review and examine the law. This past February, the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics submitted its findings to Education Secretary Rod Paige. Paige plans to study the report, called “Open to All: Title IX at Thirty,” and could make changes in how the department enforces the law based on the commission’s recommendations.
“The whole purpose of the commission was to look at ways to strengthen opportunities for some athletes and ensure that opportunities for some athletes aren’t being created or taken away at the expense of others,” said Susan Aspey, Education Department spokeswoman.
Nobody on either side disputes statistics that show the sizeable increase in women’s participation in high school and college sports during Title IX’s first three decades. During that time, female participation in sports shot up 847 percent in high school and 400 percent in college. Male participation also increased, although by smaller percentages.
According to the National Federation of State High School Associations, 3.6 million boys participated in high school athletics in 1971-1972, compared to 294,015 girls. Thirty years later, the group reports, 6.76 million boys and 2.8 million girls played high school sports.
In college, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the participation numbers for men have increased from 170,384 in 1971-1972 to 208,866 last year. About 30,000 women played sports in college in 1971-1972, and in 2001-2002, that number increased five-fold to 150,916.
Donna Lopiano, executive director of the Women’s Sports Foundation, pointed out that male athletes still participate in sports in greater numbers and percentages than women. “It’s impossible to have discrimination against men when they’re over- represented, when they participate in sports far in excess of their presence in the student body,” Lopiano said.
According to Lopiano, male college athletes receive 58,000 more chances to play sports than women – based on current team rosters — and get $133 million more in athletic scholarships every year. Women make up 56 percent of the student body at universities but represent just 42 percent of the collegiate athletic population, Lopiano noted.
Jessica Gavora, who has written a book that says Title IX has been unfair to men, said she’s “sure there are isolated incidents” of discrimination against women in athletics.
“I know that what is a greater evil, however, today is that there is systematic discrimination against men under Title IX, and that is in clear violation of the letter and spirit of the law,” said Gavora, author of Tilting the Playing Field: Schools, Sports, Sex and Title IX and chief speechwriter for Attorney General John Ashcroft. “The way that the law is implemented today and the way that it is clearly understood to be enforced by colleges and universities is by creating a preference for women.”
The Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights administers Title IX. In 1979, the office gave schools three ways to demonstrate they were in compliance with the law.
Under the three-part test, schools can show that they are obeying the law by demonstrating that men and women participate in sports in numbers that are proportional to their representation in the student body; by giving evidence that they are continuing to improve opportunities for women, or by demonstrating that they are meeting the “interests and abilities” of the “underrepresented sex,” generally women.
Institutions have to meet the conditions of only one part of the test to show they are in compliance with the law. Yet partly because “proportionality” is the first prong of the test, it has become the focus of the most heated debate. This is also the case because in 1996, the civil rights office called the proportionality standard a “safe harbor,” meaning that if universities show compliance under that part of the test, the office assumes that the school is not discriminating on the basis of sex.
Those who argue for change say the proportionality test amounts to a quota.
“I think Title IX was passed as an anti-discrimination law,” Gavora said. “Today, it’s a preference law, and it needs to be once again an anti- discrimination law.”
Title IX advocates respond that the current system is fair.
“I think the issue here is sharing the sandbox,” Lopiano said. “Before Title IX, men got the sandbox and all the toys in the sandbox. Now, they have to share. Sometimes, I think the general attitude is that women can get to play with the toys, but only when the boys let them.”
The commission has recommended moving away from the strict proportionality test to allow a “reasonable variance” in the ratios. It also suggested providing “clear, consistent and understandable written guidelines” for the implementation of Title IX and abandoning the “safe harbor” aspect of the first part of the test.
Title IX advocates — including the Women’s Sports Foundation and the National Women’s Law Center, which has filed lawsuits on behalf of women athletes — criticized the commission for failing to address the issue of discrimination against women athletes. The commission also did not assess the impact of its recommendations, these groups said.
“From the very beginning of this commission, the way it was established, the mission it was provided, was not one that connected with the true purpose of Title IX, which is to address discrimination,” said Leslie Annexstein, senior counsel at the law center. “That’s a fundamental flaw with the commission.”
Two of the 15 commissioners – Julie Foudy, president of the Women’s Sports Foundation and captain of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team, and former Olympic swimmer Donna de Varona — wrote a minority report that took issue with the commission’s recommendations.
Foudy and de Varona wrote that “many of the recommendations made by the majority would seriously weaken Title IX’s protections and substantially reduce the opportunities to which women and girls are entitled under current law….” They added that only one proposal dealt with the budget constraints that they said led to elimination of men’s teams.
“I think that they’re perpetuating an inequity, a situation in violation of their stated principles,” Gavora said, referring to the position of the Women’s Sports Foundation, Foudy and other Title IX advocates. “They are perpetuating a situation that is eventually going to come back and bite them in the ass because American people are fundamentally fair, and the more they know about the inequities, the injustices under Title IX that are being meted out for men, the less they like it.”
UNH’s Scarano said there are still subtle cases of discrimination against women, but he admits that certain men’s sports have also suffered as a result of the law.
“I don’t think anyone can be ignorant enough to say it’s not at the hands of Title IX,” he said.
The UNH women’s swimming and diving athletes receive scholarships while the males in that sport do not. “That’s a divisive issue, and it’s not necessarily a fair issue,” Scarano said.
The situation has helped the women’s swim team succeed while the men’s team struggles to attract top-notch swimmers.
“You can definitely see the impact that it has,” said Dan Brittan, a junior from Nashua and member of the UNH men’s swimming and diving team. “The women’s team is always at the top of the conference. They’ve got a whole lot of talent. Our men’s team is struggling to keep our roster around 10 guys, which is half the size of the women’s team. We’re doing this just because we like to.”
“I don’t think this is a thing necessarily with UNH, but I think the sport of swimming for men is in real big trouble because there aren’t scholarships anywhere,” said Josh Willman, the head coach of both the men’s and women’s swimming teams.
Other New Hampshire college administrators and coaches also said they support the law.
“I firmly believe in Title IX,” said Joseph “Chip” Polak, athletic director at Southern New Hampshire University for the past 27 years. “I just always believed that there should be not only equal opportunities but equal funding.”
Polak said the school complies with the proportionality test. He added that although the intent of the law is correct, the results are flawed because schools can’t afford to add enough women’s teams without eliminating some men’s sports.
Plymouth State College has complied with the law by demonstrating that it is making continual progress toward improving opportunities for women. In 1985, Plymouth State added a women’s swimming and diving team. Seven years ago, it added women’s volleyball. It soon will add another, undetermined, women’s sport.
The school prides itself on equality, according to men and women in the athletic department.
“Everybody’s pretty equal,” athletic director John P. Clark said. “The coaches and the staff and the students are feeling that things are pretty fair right now.”
Lauren Lavigne, head coach of women’s basketball, said “equality is at the forefront” at Plymouth State.
Lavigne attended Manchester West High School, where she played three sports. At Plymouth State, she played basketball and softball.
“So many people of my generation and below have kind of taken advantage of it,” Lavigne said, referring to Title IX and the opportunities it has created for women to play sports. She said that since Bush undertook a re-evaluation of the law, “it really made us aware of how far we’ve come and [helped us] to remember all the trailblazers of years past.”
Some women athletes said Title IX has allowed them to have many of the same opportunities that male athletes enjoy.
“Look at all the opportunities for girls to play,” said Michaela Leary, who is from Nashua and plays point guard on George Washington University’s women’s basketball team. “I’m going to college on a full scholarship. If it was 30 years ago, those opportunities wouldn’t be as great.
“I think having the legislation in place forced institutions, especially universities, to really provide the financial support to allow women to play sports,” said Liz Dancause, also from Nashua and a current member of GWU women’s basketball team. “Without that, we’d still be fighting for equal opportunity to play.”
Most members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation said they favor Title IX and the opportunities it has afforded women but added that the law should not cost men their teams.
“I think what’s important is that the law be applied in a fair and equitable way that doesn’t force sports programs to be stripped away from universities,” Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., said in an interview. “That’s been an issue with UNH. They’ve lost a number of teams over the years, and I don’t think anyone thinks that’s necessarily a good trend.”
New Hampshire’s freshman congressman, Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said he supports Title IX, but with some caveats.
“I think it’s important that we create opportunities for women’s athletics and women athletes,” Bradley said in an interview. “It’s a shame when the law may make for some universities dropping some teams. That disturbs me. At the end of the day, I want to make sure that we’re encouraging all young athletes to be able to participate to the best of their ability.”
Some men’s sports, including wrestling and gymnastics, have suffered many cuts since 1972.
The National Wrestling Coaches Association and the College Sports Council have sued the Education Department to change its interpretation of Title IX.
“We want to go back to the original intent of Title IX,” said Jamie Moffatt the sports council’s executive director. “We feel now that the pendulum has flown way too far the other way, and that male sports are getting obliterated.”
“We do think it’s a good law,” Moffatt added. “It’s just been terribly, terribly enforced.”
The wrestling coaches group lists more than 380 universities that have discontinued wrestling programs.
“It’s clear through the last six or seven months when the Title IX commission hearings were being held, there’s overwhelming support for Title IX reform,” Michael Moyer, the group’s executive director, said in an interview. “We can only hope that the Department of Education will accept this very clear signal.”
Dick Aronson, executive director of the College Gymnastics Association, said that from 1970 to 1975, there were 234 men’s gymnastics teams; today, there are 20. He said Title IX is just part of the reason for the cuts. The other problem is money.
Others, however, said universities cite Title IX as an excuse to cut teams. They could just as easily reduce the amount of money they spend on big-ticket sports, such as football, according to Title IX’s proponents.
“People have chosen to prioritize in a certain way and are conveniently hiding behind Title IX as a reason for it,” said Peter Roby, director of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University in Boston. Roby said he’d like to know why schools cut some men’s teams rather than “lessening the amount of scholarships that they provide to men’s football programs.”
Last year, the University of Vermont downgraded its men’s and women’s gymnastics teams from varsity to club status. Head coach Gary Bruening said his teams were cut so the school could meet Title IX requirements.
“Both men’s and women’s teams were cut, (a) result of gender equity compliance,” Bruening said. “It was all an attempt to equal out proportionality.”
But at the time of the downgrading, there were three times as many women on the teams as men.
Parents of former Catamounts gymnasts said the teams were cut for financial reasons.
“They’ve never mentioned Title IX,” said Edie Jones, a teacher from Bow whose daughter, Becky, competed on Vermont’s gymnastics team her freshman year. “It was disappointing because she was really looking forward to being able to compete as a team, not as just a club member.”
Becky decided to stay at Vermont, and after lettering her freshman year, she now competes on the gymnastics club team.
“I think it was based on financial decisions,” said Barbara Resnick of Columbia, Md., whose son, Elie Sollins, who was on the men’s gymnastics team. “After my son went through a great deal of angst over it, he did decide to stay on at the school. Part of the decision was based on the fact that he didn’t know what was going to happen somewhere else. He was really concerned about that.”
Paige has not said when he will announce his decision on enforcement of Title IX.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Lawmakers Say House Plays Significant Role
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — When President Bush needs something from Congress these days, he has to negotiate with the Senate, where Democrats and moderate Republicans have the power to block White House proposals. That has left some House members feeling as if they don't matter.
But not New Hampshire's two Republican House members, Charlie Bass and Jeb Bradley.
"I don't feel irrelevant at all," Bradley, a freshman, said in an interview.
Bass and Bradley said the House has played a crucial role in passing key legislation, and they do make a difference.
"I think that the House has set the agenda for the last 10 years in a very significant manner," Bass said in an interview. "Big changes occurred in the manner in which this country is governed as a result of what Congress has done and, hopefully, will continue to do."
The House, which is under strong Republican control, still often works with the White House to set the agenda. But because Republicans have only a two-seat majority in the Senate, and because Senate rules often require them to team up with some Democrats to get anything done, the balance of power has shifted to that less predictable chamber.
"There's a lot of truth to the notion, almost inevitably, that the House has been very reliable for the president," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan, public-policy think tank in Washington. "To make it that way," he said, Bush and Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, R-TX, "have had to lean heavily on many of their members. But they've made it happen."
Ornstein said Bush has to negotiate with the Senate, while moving the House "as far to the right" as he can to gain bargaining leverage. Because House Republicans know they're "going to vote with them no matter what, people feel as if they're being taken for granted, pushed around and treated as fodder," he said. "It's not surprising there's some pushback now. There's kind of a plea for a little more recognition of who they are, maybe even a little more sweet-talking."
Among other things, Bass said, the House has led the way to pass Bush's first round of tax cuts (though others are still under debate); the No Child Left Behind Act, which increases academic standards in schools; and legislation that tripled spending for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provides children with disabilities with more educational resources and access to schools.
Bass credited House Republicans for many changes made after the GOP took control in 1995.
"The concept of a balanced budget," Bass said, "the concept of rebuilding our defense, being proactive in times of economic recession rather than just sitting on one's hands and fretting, which usually happened prior to 1995, is all a result of Congress' willingness to be aggressive in setting the agenda. (A) Medicare prescription drug plan has come out of the House twice now. That's not how I define irrelevant."
Bradley said he is "extraordinarily grateful for the opportunity to have a role to play in trying to move our nation forward to improve our national security to win the war on terrorism."
Bradley added that he believes the top issue facing the government now is how best to keep Americans safe. Other significant issues include stimulating the economy and reforming health care.
Ornstein also said that the House is not totally unimportant.
"All the tax bills originate there (the House), and they have had some significant role, so it's not as if they're completely powerless," he said. "But the fact is the attitude of this White House is that the policies emanate from the White House, the priorities emanate from the White House. Members of Congress and the Republicans in the leadership are their field lieutenants and their field generals. After awhile, many of them at least begin to want to assert their own independence."
Because House Republicans have strong control over the chamber - there are 229 Republicans, 205 Democrats and one independent -- House Democrats have little say over what happens there, according to Ornstein. In the Senate, Republicans enjoy only a slim majority - they have 51 of 100 seats -- so Democrats have more leverage.
"The Democrats have felt completely marginalized in the House by the Republicans," Ornstein said. "That's even true (of) the so-called 'blue dogs,' the centrist or more conservative Democrats. Now more than ever, Republicans don't need them. They can do it all on their own."
Bass and Bradley said that, for the most part, House members are united.
"I think we're very united, with a few problems," Bass said. "We're united on our supplemental budget, on support of the troops and on support of this president. I don't think there's any reason why we can't disagree on other things that don't relate to national security."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Bass Visits Injured Marines in Washington
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — On a dark, cloudy morning, Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., helped brighten up the spirits of wounded Marines hospitalized here with some of New Hampshire's maple syrup.
Bass joined about 11 other members of Congress, including House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., in a trip to the National Naval Medical Center in suburban Bethesda, Md., at 7:15 a.m. yesterday to visit Marines injured in the war with Iraq.
"You don't understand just how much courage it takes to do what these Marines are doing until you see wounded Marines and know that this happened in the field under adverse circumstances," Bass said in an interview.
The Congressmen saw about half of the 25 Marines who were brought to the hospital after being injured in Iraq. Most were 19 to 21 years old. None was older than 25.
Bass said most of the wounded Marines told him they were proud to have served their country and that they supported President Bush's decision to wage war.
"They think they're doing something that's going to make a difference for generations in front of them," Bass said.
Some of the Marines were seriously injured. A tank ran over one Marine while he slept in his tent. Hand grenades exploded in the faces of some others. And a bullet pierced the hip of one Marine and exited the other side, Bass said.
A field doctor cut that Marine open to make sure there was no damage to his arteries and then sewed him back up, Bass said. When he saw him at the hospital, Bass added, he was walking.
"Their friends or their fellow soldiers helped save their lives and bring them through a process where, in some instances, even as recently as Operation Desert Storm, (they) would never have survived," he said, referring to America's last war with Iraq a dozen years ago.
"I thought it was a very important part of my understanding and appreciation of the day to see the people who have made these kinds of sacrifices, talk to them about it and find out how they feel," Bass said.
"All of them were very thin," he said. "They explained to us, 'We were this way because if you had to eat what (we've) been eating for the last six weeks, you wouldn't be fat either.' "
Troops in Iraq dine on MREs, or meals ready-to-eat, standard pre-cooked military food.
None of the Marines Bass saw was from New Hampshire. But he said they enjoyed the maple syrup anyway.
"Their faces brightened up, and they thought that was wonderful," Bass said.
He said he and the other lawmakers asked the Marines if they wished to share the stories of how they were wounded.
"You go into the room with them, and you've never met them or know them. They don't know you," Bass said. "You say, 'Thank you, we admire and appreciate your heroism and we're proud of you. Of course, they go, 'Oh yeah, no big deal.' "
But Bass said the Marines were happy and willing to share their accounts.
"I think it makes them feel better that somebody cares," he said.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Plaistow Man Helps Construct New Visitor Center
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Stand at the top of the Capitol's Senate steps, and you will see bulldozers and builders hard at work constructing the new Capitol Visitor Center.
For Plaistow native Duane Dumont, who is working on the underground project, just being here is the opportunity of a lifetime.
"I love it down here," Dumont said. "It's got lots of excitement. I love politics, and where better to go than the capital? There's all kinds of things to do. My wife (Fran) and I, we've traveled all over the country. One of the last areas we really haven't spent any time is in the D.C. area."
Describing his opportunity to help build the center, Dumont said, "How can you pass up history?"
The center is being built under the Capitol's East Front and, when it is completed, it will include exhibit space, theaters and an auditorium, all to provide visitors with information about Congress..
Working for Gilbane Construction, the company building the center, the burly Dumont is the senior mechanical coordinator for the project. In that role, he handles the mechanical, electrical and plumbing aspects of the construction.
Dumont said a 30-inch waterline that consists of nearly 3,000 yards of piping has been installed, and work is underway on a utility tunnel that will serve as the entranceway to the center.
Dumont has worked in construction for 23 years, and his job has allowed him to travel, one of his favorite hobbies. "The best part of my job is they pay me to travel," he said. "Wherever we've gone, there's a lot of beautiful stuff to see."
Dumont has lived and worked all over America, from the bustling streets and cities of the Northeast to the vast deserts and forests of the West. Arizona is his favorite place.
"It's just so much history," he said. "I love history, and when you go up in that area, you see the Indians, you see the four points, where you have four states come together, you got the Grand Canyon, you have dinosaur tracks. We spend a lot of time outdoors just doing different types of historic stuff like that."
His love of travel goes beyond where his work has taken him. Two years ago, he surprised his wife with a trip to Hawaii for their 20th wedding anniversary. Fran Dumont said she "loved" it.
Dumont came to the capital about six months ago to work on the center. Before that, he helped construct Building 220, a Pfizer research lab in Groton, Conn., that at the time was the biggest of its kind, he said. More recently, he worked on Nashua North High School. There, he became interested in the Senate campaign of then-House member John E. Sununu, R., N.H.
"I knew his views, and I was just giving views out, and I turned a lot of votes his way," Dumont said.
Later, he met the new senator. "It's just that way. One day, I see him here (Washington), and I congratulate him for being here," Dumont said. "That's how it all started."
Sununu, in a statement, recalled the meeting: "As I was walking across the plaza one morning, a man with a Gilbane Construction helmet stepped up and said, 'Good morning, Senator Sununu.' As I shook his hand, he mentioned that he was from Plaistow. It's always great to see a friendly face from New Hampshire and particularly nice to see involvement in such a significant project."
Dumont brings much experience and expertise to a job he loves.
"He's very knowledgeable, so I'm actually learning a lot from him," said Donna Nottingham, assistant superintendent for the center project. "He's funny, fun to be around. He keeps in tune with what's going on."
Near a street filled with parked cars across from the Russell Senate Office Building sits one of the main feeders for the waterline. Pointing this out, Dumont recalled that parking was banned on the street for some time while workers dug underground to install the pipes.
"That made us very popular on the Senate side," he joked.
Dumont, 43, is a graduate of Timberlane Regional High School in Plaistow and attended the University of New Hampshire's business management school. He got his start in construction working with his brother, who did sheet metal work. Dumont ended up building "clean rooms," the uncontaminated rooms used to manufacture products for pharmaceutical companies and computer chip producers, such as Intel and IBM.
Even when he's not on the job, Dumont likes to do construction work. One of his hobbies is building houses, and he has built two in Maine, his wife's home state.
He and Fran, married 22 years, are living in a half-finished townhouse they bought in Woodbridge, Va., a Washington suburb. Dumont said he's going to finish it while he is working in Washington.
"He just shows really good commitment to issues he believes in, he's a really hard worker, a good family man," Fran said.
The couple has one child, Ethan, 20, a Marine Corps communications officer stationed in Okinawa. Dumont also has a stepdaughter, Jessica, 26, who lives in Boston and is a faculty assistant at Harvard.
As Dumont talks about his son, he opens his jacket to reveal the Marine Corps shirt he is wearing. He says because Ethan is stationed near North Korea, he is not worried that his son will be deployed to Iraq.
As for his own safety in Washington, with the never-ending warnings of terrorist threats, Dumont said he is not too concerned.
"I look at the terrorist threats just like I look at my life," he said. "I could cross the street tomorrow and get hit by a car, so why worry about it?"
Sitting in the construction trailer, his cleanly cropped gray hair slicked back, his hard hat off for the moment, Dumont reflects on his home state. As much as he likes Washington, he said, he prefers the Granite State.
"I wouldn't want to live here forever because (there are) too many people," he said. "Traffic is a big killer. New Hampshire, you're an hour away from the mountains. Seacoasts. I'm big on the ocean, big on the mountains, and you're a half hour, hour away from one or from the other."
However, there are other elements that make Washington more attractive than the often-frigid New England area.
"If I was living in Maine, we'd be bundled up in jackets wondering when the snow's going to melt," Dumont said. Reflecting on a recent trip to nearby Virginia, he said, "Two weeks ago, my wife and I took our two dogs to Manassas, and we were walking the battlefields in T-shirts, seeing history."
His workday lasts 10 hours, and that should soon increase to 12 hours or more once construction of the main building begins. But he does not mind the long hours, the temporary position or the interim stay in the nation's capital, he said.
"The best part I find working in construction, you have your small type (job), where you're always in the same spot," he said. "Then, you have your bigger jobs. Those are my type of jobs. Usually, you have to go to an area to do it. A good example is D.C. It's a three- to five-year job, so I'm guaranteed that I'm going to be in a new location three to five years, and in that time, I can do all the traveling in that area and see all the historic sites."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Bradley says War in Iraq Going According to Plan
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Despite recent criticism that the Pentagon did not send enough troops to fight the war in Iraq, New Hampshire's freshman Congress member, Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said he believes the war plan is efficient.
"My assessment, which is the overwhelming assessment of members of Congress, is that our troops are doing one heck of a good job and the war plan is working well," Bradley said in an interview yesterday. "We averted an environmental catastrophe with the oil wells being destroyed, humanitarian aid is flowing at this point unimpeded. There's been minimal loss of Iraqi civilians and our troops are punching through Republican Guard fortifications in a careful, steady-as-you-go assault on Baghdad."
As the United States military moved closer to Baghdad yesterday, power went out in much of Iraq's capital, bombs exploded near the city and U.S. forces attacked the Saddam International Airport there.
But "friendly fire" from a U.S. fighter jet struck troops on the ground in Iraq, killing one American soldier.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has stood firmly behind his war plan. A number of reports have quoted mostly anonymous high-ranking military officials questioning whether the United States had put enough troops and equipment on the ground.
"From my point of view, this looks like an excellent plan, and the experts have been saying all along you have to adapt to circumstances," said Bradley, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. "Look what the Department of Defense had to adapt to. The troops were supposed to come into Turkey (and) couldn't. That's huge."
On Wednesday, Turkey granted permission for the U.S. to fly equipment over the country into Iraq. But the Turkish parliament previously rejected U.S. requests to launch troops from bases there.
"I think the Armed Services Committee is going to show where we will be going in terms of the future weapons systems, what's worked, what is necessary, how we can improve our intelligence gathering," Bradley said.
Bradley said the focus for lawmakers right now should be to support the president and pass his request for about $80 billion in a supplemental budget, largely to wage the war. Both are expected to pass the House and Senate this week.
"It's not cheap, but it's the right thing to do to support our troops, to defend our liberties," Bradley said.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
U.S. Senate Honors Sinking of Thresher
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Forty years after the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Thresher sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, New Hampshire's two senators supported legislation commemorating the event.
Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., introduced the bill Tuesday, and later that day it unanimously passed the Senate. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. and Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, were co-sponsors.
The submarine sank on April 10, 1963, about 220 miles east of Boston, as it conducted deep-diving exercises. All aboard - 16 officers, 96 enlisted men and 17 civilians - died in the tragedy.
"This legislation honors their brave service, and the service of all submariners who are 'on eternal patrol,'" Sununu said in a press release. "The loss of the Thresher was an enormous tragedy for the U.S. submarine service, for the Navy and the nation."
Gregg expressed similar feelings.
"The brave sailors and civilians aboard the U.S.S. Thresher made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our nation," he said in a press release. "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."
The Thresher, built at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, was commissioned in 1961 and underwent weapons tests, including on its torpedoes.
After the sub sank, the Navy investigated and determined that the most probable cause of the accident was a leak in its engine room because of corrosions in its pipes. This, in turn, could have caused electrical problems on the sub.
After the accident, the Navy established additional safety procedures, including the SUBSAFE program, which requires each submarine to pass a series of safety tests.
According to the press release, Sununu, Gregg and Maine's two senators will introduce legislation asking Army Secretary Thomas E. White to create a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring those who lost their lives on the Thresher as well as on all other nuclear subs that were lost at sea.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Judd Gregg Introduces Clean Air Bill in Senate
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., introduced a bill Wednesday to reduce air pollution and limit harmful chemicals that are released from power plants.
Gregg, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, co-authored the bi-partisan Clean Air Planning Act of 2003, with Sens. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Tom Carper, D-DE.
According to a statement released by Gregg's office, the legislation would decrease the amounts of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury from power plants by tightening restrictions on the output of air pollution by the plants. In addition to reducing plant emissions, the legislation would also allow power plants to come into compliance with pollution guidelines by planting trees or croplands to reduce the presence of carbon dioxide.
"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," Gregg said in a statement. "Specifically, emissions of sulfur dioxide will be reduced by 80 percent, nitrogen oxide by 69 percent and mercury by 80 percent. These reductions are aggressive but realistic and allow power plants to bring their operations within the scope of the new law without causing them fatal economic hardship."
Although the power plants are located throughout the country, the chemicals still travel to New England and hurt the air. According to Gregg, the jet stream takes the chemical emissions to the Northeast.
"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. "This pollution produces smog, haze and acid rain, threatening the health of those most susceptible to sickness, including the young, disabled or elderly and greatly damaging the quality of our ecosystem."
Besides calling for a reduction of harmful chemicals, the legislation also asks the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to present accurate air quality forecasts throughout the nation, according to Gregg's office.
Gregg, who also chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, already has helped New Hampshire get $6 million over the last two years to develop an air pollution forecasting system. The forecasting service should go into effect next year, according to Gregg's office.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
3 NH Congressional Winners Spent Less Than Their Opponents
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — All three New Hampshire winners of last year's election to Congress received and spent less money than their opponents.
In the closest election of the three, Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., raised about $3.73 million and spent more than $3.67 million, far less than former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, who raised and spent approximately $5.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (at opensecrets.org).
Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., raised $1.01 million and spent about $983,450, while his opponent, Martha Fuller Clark, raised and spent more than $3.5 million. Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., raised $906,760 and spent $886,700 in his reelection campaign; his challenger, Katrina Swett, raised and spent more than $1.4 million.
"It's been that way every single election I've run except for one," Bass said in an interview. "The moral: money doesn't buy elections. Votes win elections. Candidates discover this year after year after year. It's what you believe in and how effectively you communicate your message."
Bass said the new campaign finance law that went into effect the day after last November's elections and bans federally unregulated "soft money" would not change his next campaign's fund-raising strategy. "I never raised or spent any soft money," he said. "I'm simply going about the business of organizing my campaign two years from now just as I always did.
"On the national level, I think that it'll reduce the ability of the national campaign committees, both Republican and Democrat, to have a big presence in a particular campaign, to spend a million dollars, for example, on media on a candidate or an incumbent who's in trouble."
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who was not up for reelection, received $277,763 during the 2001-02 election cycle, according to Political Money Line.
The money raised by all four current members of the New Hampshire delegation came from a variety of individuals and PACs (political action committees). According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sununu received more than $1.5 million from PACs in 2001-02, the most of anyone in the New Hampshire delegation.
Verizon Communications, through its two PACs, was one of the largest contributors. In 2001-2002, it gave $2,500 to Gregg, and $10,000 to Bass and $10,000 to Bradley, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
PACs can contribute a maximum of $10,000 per election cycle. However, individual contributions also came from Verizon employees. Bass, for example, received $2,000 from Verizon employees, and Bradley received $500.
"The way we decide to give to particular candidates is that we always support candidates that support progressive telecommunications policies that are pro-competition and pro-consumer," Susan Butta, a Verizon spokesman, said in an interview.
The PAC of SBC Communications, another Baby Bell, contributed $9,000 to Bass and $3,000 to Bradley, according to the CRP. "We generally support those members that have a basic understanding of our industry and have like-minded feelings towards what our industry needs, which is less regulation," Barry Hutchison, an SBC spokesman, said in an interview. "Charlie Bass and others, they certainly have those beliefs."
Bass serves on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. But he and Hutchison said that was not why SBC contributed to the campaign.
"They support me, I'm assuming, because I do a good job representing New Hampshire," Bass said. "It's important to remember what comes first. Voting record comes first. I have certain beliefs and so forth; if these entities agree with me, they make contributions. There is no quid pro quo or anything like that."
BAE North America's PAC was Bass' largest contributor. The defense contractor gave the maximum $10,000 to Bass, who also received $4,652 from BAE employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The PAC gave $5,000 to Bradley.
New Hampshire is such a jurisdiction, and its two House members back a strong national defense, Measell said.
Like Bass, Bradley said he was looking to raise just the "hard money" that is regulated by the Federal Election Commission.
The freshman lawmaker received loans for his election campaign that he is working to pay back. The FEC reports that Bradley accepted $309,000 in personal loans and that his campaign is approximately $33,000 in debt.
The FEC report indicates that Bradley had close to $27,800 in cash after the election, a sum he plans to increase. "We're building that up," he said. "We had (a fundraising) event down here in Washington. I think that was pretty successful, so that's the kind of thing we'll continue to do. I look to have ample resources to run a strong re-election effort."
Gregg, the Granite State's veteran senator, spent approximately $350,700 in the last election cycle, according to Political Money Line, and had $368,391 cash on hand at the end of last year. He is up for reelection next year.
Gregg chairs both the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary. He is a member of the Budget Committee.
The National Association of Broadcasters PAC contributed $9,999 to Gregg in 2001-2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
All members of Congress' personal financial disclosures are due on May 15.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
NH Congressional Delegation Focused on Work and War
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Eight days after the first bombs struck Iraq, Congress and New Hampshire's lawmakers are going about their daily business, for the most part.
"We're getting briefings every day from the State Department, Defense Department and, if necessary, Homeland Security," Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., said in an interview. "That's the only change on a daily basis. We have a regular schedule this week, so the business of Congress is going along."
With the thundering sounds and flaring images of bombs and missiles constantly lighting up the night sky in Iraq, ground troops speeding through the desert in tanks, pictures of injured or captured U.S. soldiers on television and recent reports that the war might take much longer than originally expected, Americans and members of Congress have focused much of their attention on the war. For the nation's political leaders, however, life pretty much continues as planned.
The House could vote on President Bush's $74.7 billion supplemental war budget request as early as next week. Yesterday, the House voted to pass the Amber Alert bill to help prevent child abductions.
Bass, along with New Hampshire's other congressman, Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said he thinks that Americans are keeping a close eye on the war. "I think members of Congress are watching very carefully the news and so forth, and responding to it," he said.
"Like every other American, members of Congress are glued to their television set," Bradley said in an interview. "From my point of view, I'm doing everything I guess that we can to show support for the troops publicly, to support the mission."
With most Americans' eyes on the war, and this being the first time journalists are "embedded" with military units, the media's coverage of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" has become a controversial topic.
"I find that coverage has been exceptional," Bradley said. "What I think it's showing Americans at home is how dedicated these young men and women are who are defending our liberties."
After spending the majority of the last two weeks voting on various amendments to the budget resolution for next year, the Senate approved it on Wednesday.
"The Senate continues to go about its business," Jeff Turcotte, press secretary for Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said in a statement. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Gregg chairs, met yesterday, Turcotte noted. "So business has not ground to a halt," he said.
However, he said the war has prompted lots of talk and concern at the Capitol.
"While the Senate continues its business, the war in Iraq has been front and center for a great deal of discussion here," Turcotte said. "I'm not sure it's fair to classify the mood on the Hill as business 'as usual.' While the budget process is a predictable, annual event, obviously the thoughts and prayers of Senator Gregg are with the troops in Iraq."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge testified yesterday before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the President's supplemental budget request.
Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., said he doesn't think it's been "business as usual" in this time of war.
"This is an extraordinary circumstance," he said. "National security issues, homeland security spending, are at the top of the priority list. On a day-to-day basis, we're receiving top-secret briefings each morning that help to ensure senators have any information they need in making good policy decisions."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Gregg, Sununu Against Arctic Drilling Ban
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted yesterday to ban oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with New Hampshire's two senators voting in favor of drilling.
The 52-48 vote was on a measure to delete language in President Bush's budget proposal for next year that would open up the refuge to oil drilling. The issue was seen as so close that on the eve of a likely war, Vice President Dick Cheney came to the Capitol to lobby Republican senators to vote for the drilling.
The ANWR area in question covers 1.5 million acres along the coastal plain in northeastern Alaska. It is home to more than 160 species of birds, 36 fish species and 36 mammals, including caribou, wolves and polar bears.
Eight Republicans, including Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against opening up the refuge to oil exploration. Five Democrats voted in favor of the drilling.
During Senate debate on Tuesday and yesterday, oil drilling supporters argued that only a small portion of the refuge would be subject to drilling and that doing so would also create jobs throughout the United States. Furthermore, these supporters said, the drilling wouldn't harm the refuge's animals or the environment.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said he supports drilling in ANWR. "I believe that a comprehensive energy plan is absolutely critical to the security and economic well-being of this nation," he said in a statement. "A national energy policy needs to balance our growing demand for energy. I believe that this balance should include limited, environmentally-sensitive exploration in a small fraction of (ANWR).
"On a larger scale, development of ANWR could reduce America's dependence on foreign oil," Gregg said. "We cannot afford to rely on rogue nations like Iraq for oil, a resource vital to the economy and security of our country. The fields in ANWR are the best bet for significant oil finds in the United States."
New Hampshire's junior senator, Republican John E. Sununu, also supports Alaskan oil drilling.
"Today especially, given the uncertainty in global energy markets, it makes sense to take a balanced approach to energy policy that includes support for conservation, reliable infrastructure and domestic exploration," Sununu said in a statement. "Setting 2,000 acres aside in the northernmost part of Alaska in order to access the third-largest energy find in U.S. history is good energy policy and good economic policy."
Those against drilling in ANWR said doing so would harm the environment and wildlife in one of the world's most "pristine" refuges. Furthermore, they said, such action would reduce U.S. oil imports by just 2 percent.
Both New Hampshire House members oppose drilling in Alaska. Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., has always been against ANWR drilling. He said that the oil supply from that part of Alaska would be enough to support the United States for only six months. Bass also said that the oil from the refuge might not even go to America.
"I don't really think that drilling in the wilderness in Alaska is really justifiable given the time frame that it would take to develop the resource and the amount of resource oil and gas that would be retrieved," he said in an interview.
"Oil is such a fungible item," Bass said. "It's almost like currency. Just because we're producing more oil in Alaska doesn't mean that we're gonna have greater energy supplies in America. The overall global supply of oil is all one big pool."
Although Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., does not support oil drilling, he said he does not think the refuge should be closed permanently.
"It's not the right time to designate ANWR as something that's off limits from drilling forever and a day," Bradley said in an interview. "Given the world international situation, the fact that we're importing ever-more quantities of oil, we need to embark on a policy of conservation, energy efficiency, more efficient use of technology and more production of American resources."
Bradley also said he believes these goals can be achieved without opening up ANWR to drilling. However, closing ANWR to drilling forever would be "premature," Bradley said.
If ANWR were to be opened to drilling, the oil wouldn't be able to reach the rest of the United States for 10 years, Bradley said.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
