Category: Daniel Remin
Sununu Opposes Double Taxation
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., at a press conference yesterday, called for an end to the double taxation of dividends, saying such a tax is unfair and “wrong.”
“This isn’t about rich and poor, it’s not about old and young, it is about fairness and the simple question, whether or not it is ever right for the government to tax someone’s income twice,” Sununu said at the press conference.
Double taxation refers to the fact that corporate income is taxed and then the dividends the companies pay to their shareholders also are taxed.
The Granite State’s junior senator joined members of the Seniors Coalition, a conservative senior advocacy group, and congressional leaders who support President Bush’s proposal to end the dividend tax.
Senior citizens are most affected by the dividend tax, advocates of its repeal say, because seniors receive half of all dividend payments and rely to a greater degree than younger people on income from their investments.
“It’s time to ax the double tax on dividends,” Flora “Grandma” Green, the Seniors Coalition’s lead spokeswoman and grandmother of 24, said in her speech. “As you grow older, you move from higher returns to safe, conservative investments like dividend-paying stocks. But seniors are not able to enjoy the fruits of their careful planning because the stock earnings that have already been taxed once are taxed again.”
Under Bush’s plan, ending the dividend tax should allow Americans to keep more of their income and lead to more jobs and a stronger economy. According to Sununu, America has one of the highest dividend taxes in the world.
“Every country in Europe has lower taxes on dividends,” he said. “Those countries recognize that by reducing the rate of taxes on dividends you’re going to encourage savings, encourage better corporate behavior and you’re going to treat the citizens of your country more fairly. It’s the right thing to do for our retirees.”
Opponents of the plan, however, contend that such a tax cut would benefit the wealthy primarily because they are the ones who have the most dividend income.
“Although low and middle-income owners might get modest tax cuts from the dividend cut, higher-income people would get huge cuts from the dividend tax cut since they have much higher amounts of dividends,” Andrew Lee, a research assistant with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said.
Lee also said that the same applies to seniors. “It disproportionately benefits high-income elderly rather than low- or middle-income elderly.”
Green, on the other hand, said all seniors would be affected by the tax cut. “”Seniors receive half of all dividend payments, and they are not rich,” she said. “We’ve got to seize this opportunity. Now is the time for lawmakers to make a commitment to seniors to ax the double tax.”
According to Green, seniors’ median dividend income is $2,400 with an after-tax income of $35,000.
“”This isn’t about faceless wealthy American(s),” Sununu said. “It is about those that have saved, those that have put away money for their retirement and whether or not we’re going to tax it twice. It’s simply wrong.
“This is a proposal about encouraging economic growth,” Sununu said in an interview after his remarks. “Only a liberal Democrat would really believe that spending more money is a key determinant of economic growth. You encourage economic growth by giving people incentives to save and invest, and that’s what this proposal is all about.”
But Lee said he does not think such a tax cut will help the economy because the money takes away from other services.
“One fear is that these type of tax cuts can drain resources that could help low-income or middle-income elderly people more,” he said. “”For example, these health care issues or Social Security issues. To the extent that these tax cuts reduce resources for those programs, [it] could actually hurt middle-income or low-income elderly people more than it would help them.”
Last week, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act, which calls for elimination of double taxation of dividends, was introduced. It has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire Senators Say States Receive Enough Funding
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — A recent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report indicated that President Bush's statement last week in which he said that his budget calls for a nine percent increase in federal grants to state governments is "misleading" because it does not take inflation into account and is "skewed" up by Medicaid.
The nine percent number is "incorrect," according to Iris J. Lav, co-author of the CBPP report and the center's deputy director. "Under the president's budget, grants to state and local governments would increase by less than one third of that amount, or 2.9 percent between fiscal years 2003 and 2004 (without adjusting for inflation)," Lav said in an interview.
"I think that state governments know very well they're not getting any nine percent increase in grants," she said. "They are facing deficits in the $70-85 billion range for the fiscal year that begins July 1st as well as deficits that have opened up in the current fiscal year of about $25 billion."
Besides not taking inflation into account, the report indicates that including Medicaid unfairly alters the percentages, which is why the CBPP took it out of their adjusted findings.
"If you take Medicaid out because Medicaid only really reflects the increase in health costs generally, under the president's budget, grants to state and local governments would decline by 2.8 percent after adjusting for inflation," Lav said.
Lav also said that the federal government should give states money for Medicaid. "Medicaid costs are going up rather rapidly, at eight or nine percent per year," she said. "It would be very important at this point in time to assist states with Medicaid."
Another reason for federal help to Medicaid, Lav said, is because of the gradual transfer of costs from Medicare to Medicaid.
Despite these low numbers from the CBPP, New Hampshire's two senators said they feel state governments are getting enough money from federal funding.
"Clearly, the states are getting a very significant amount of money, especially in the area of education dollars," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said in an interview. "There are many fewer strings attached as a result of the No Child Left Behind bill and the significant increase in special ed funding that we put in over the last two years."
Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., also stressed the importance of special education, especially for the state of New Hampshire. "My focus has been making sure we have strong funding for special education," he said in an interview. "The president's budget includes another increase in special education funding to its highest level ever. If you talk to anyone at the local level in New Hampshire, this is their single, highest priority."
Even though Sununu said the president's budget increases grants to states, he also stated that federal funding must be managed.
"His (Bush's) budget won't be the final say in where all of the priorities are set," Sununu said. "I think we need to control the overall level of expansion in federal spending, and the president's budget does that.
"The president's budget does increase direct grants to states somewhat, at about the rate of inflation, which I think is probably appropriate," he added.
In terms of using federal funds for Medicaid, unlike Lav, Gregg said that states should not receive such aid. "That's not the federal role," he said. "New Hampshire receives a significant amount of money under Medicaid as do all states and it's not the federal role to come in and take over the state's responsibility on Medicaid."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Sununu says Relationship With Bush Good for NH
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Visiting the Bush family more than 20 years ago at Walker's Point in Kennebunkport, Maine, Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., first met President Bush, who was not yet Texas governor.
That was the start of a relationship that has become central to Sununu, in his former position as a member of the House, his election campaign last year and his current role as senator. Now, with U.S. military action against Iraq perhaps only weeks away, constant terrorist threats to the homeland and projections of record budget deficits, Sununu said the solid relationship he has with the President is proving to be a plus for New Hampshire.
"The President looks to a lot of people for advice and input," Sununu said in an interview. "When I was vice chairman of the (House) Budget Committee, (I) developed a good relationship with the White House, worked with the President's economic team as they reached out in developing the growth package that's before Congress this year, and I've always had very good relationships with the President and his key staff members. In the long run, (these relationships) help me do my job better for the people of New Hampshire."
Sununu's family has a long history with the Bushes; the senator's father served as the first President George Bush's White House chief of staff.
During Sununu's campaign for senator, the current President Bush came to New Hampshire twice to show his support, first in early October and then in the week before the vote. According to Sununu, Bush's visit helped voters focus on the themes Sununu presented in his campaign, including strong national and homeland security policies, economic growth, tax cuts and support of New Hampshire's small-business economy.
"These are important issues, and 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.
More recently, Sununu attended a luncheon at the White House with other freshman senators. At that gathering, the President spoke about his key issues, which include disarming Saddam Hussein and Bush's plan for the economy.
"That was an opportunity to provide some feedback about some of the new policy proposals he's made," Sununu said. "It was also a chance to see (White House Chief of Staff) Andy Card and (political adviser) Karl Rove, people with whom I've worked pretty closely in the past several years, and just to have some personal conversations about their priorities and concerns as we begin what will be a very challenging year."
Sununu said he sides with most of Bush's policies, especially on the economy and national security, which the senator partly attributes to the fact they are both Republicans.
"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.
Not everything the Bush administration has decided has gone Sununu's way. A significant dispute involved the need for home heating oil in New Hampshire. Sununu sent a letter to Mitchell Daniels, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, asking for federal help to meet New Hampshire residents' need for home heating oil, but nothing was done.
"I think anyone that followed the issue knows no one in the Northeast was able to break them free of their position," Sununu said. "It was a source of frustration for me, but I'm not going to agree with the President on every issue, and I think they understand that."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Vote Gives States New Regulatory Power Over Phone Lines
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — New Hampshire's two Republican congressmen said that Thursday's Federal Communications Commission vote to allow states to decide if local phone companies should let competitors use their lines is not the best option.
The vote will change the system under which federal regulators had required local phone competition and turn the decision-making over to the states.
"Although the FCC's action relieves some of the old price-regulation regime, it failed to accomplish the larger goal of creating a stable and technology-neutral framework that would support real competition and business planning," Rep. Charlie Bass said in a statement.
Rep. Jeb Bradley said he is concerned about the FCC ruling and wants a better investment strategy.
"We need in this country investment policies that are such that the telecommunications companies, be they regulated Baby Bell, long distance carriers, wireless carriers, cable providers, that favor investment in the next generation of telecommunications infrastructure deployment [are able to achieve that goal], and I'm not sure that devolving patchwork regulation to the states is what gets us there at this point in time," Bradley said in an interview.
The FCC's 3-2 vote involved a section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that governs local competition. Chairman Michael Powell and commissioner Kathleen Abernathy dissented.
"To explain their decision, the majority has cloaked itself in the drape of 'states' rights,' a classic conservative mantra," Powell said. "This is a trivial misuse of a cherished constitutional precept."
"The nation will now embark on 51 major state proceedings," Powell said. "These 51 cases will likely be decided in multiple ways. (There is) little chance of regulatory and legal harmony."
One of Powell's other concerns was that more people could lose their jobs.
"I fear we will see more job loss as carriers cut their capital expenditures and refuse to move forward with new investment and growth against this Picasso-esque regulatory backdrop."
Powell said that state regulation could create more problems for the telecommunications industry.
"It is a model that only works if hundreds of stars align perfectly and stay that way," he said. "The regulatory arbitrage bubble expands ever more perilously with each regulatory variable and is sure to eventually pop, like dot coms of old, if government policy does not diligently steer the balloon to stable ground."
In New Hampshire, Bradley said that it is important for the state to set diligent policies quickly and to work with other states so that similar guidelines are passed.
"The PUC (Public Utilities Commission) here will set clear guidelines and do so quickly so that all players know what the rules are going to be," Bradley said. "I think it's very important that the commission work with other New England and northeast regional states so that you don't have one state doing something here and one state doing something else. The commission has to make sure that the investment climate is right that encourages upgrades."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
N.H. Staffs in D.C. Back After Storm
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Most of the New Hampshire delegation's congressional offices opened yesterday in the wake of this week's snowstorm.
Heavy snow Sunday and Monday resulted in businesses closing and the subway not operating at full speed. The storm forced the federal government to close yesterday; Monday was a federal holiday, Presidents Day.
"The employees that live close enough and can make it in safely are here now," said T.J. Crawford, press secretary to Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H. "I, for example, live a block and a half from the office, so it wasn't a problem for me to get in today."
Out of a staff of seven, three people - Crawford and two legislative assistants - were working in Bradley's office yesterday. Two others, Crawford said, were in New Hampshire with the congressman, who was to have his first town hall meeting last night and a second one today.
Although some congressional aides were in their offices, Capitol Hill was quieter than usual because most lawmakers already had left town for a weeklong recess. At the office of Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., most aides were able to get to work yesterday.
"As a New Hampshire office, the snow and ice hasn't affected our ability to get to work despite the size of the storm," said Jeff Grappone, a legislative correspondent. "We are adept at navigating ice and snow."
The office of Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., also was staffed yesterday morning, according to press secretary Barbara Riley. "We have a few staffers in: our legislative director, a staff assistant who's handling the telephones (and) a press assistant," Riley said. "Other staff will be coming in as they can make it in from their homes."
The office of Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., was closed yesterday. For those who did show up, work continued as normal despite the weather and the absence of most senators and representatives.
"My job stays the same," Crawford said. "I'm still handling all the press operations. The LAs (legislative assistants) that are here will continue to do their legislative (work). The fact that it's the Presidents Day work week is not going to slow things down for us."
Riley said Sununu kept his schedule in New Hampshire except for two events, including one at a school, which was closed.
Unlike people in New Hampshire, most people in Washington are not used to so much snow.
"It's funny because down here in D.C., they don't handle the snow quite as well as people in New Hampshire," Crawford said. "This is a state of emergency in D.C. The city shutting down comes as a surprise to a few people from New Hampshire who are so used to snow like this."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Cato Institute Proposes Solution to Problem
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — At a Social Security forum sponsored by the Cato Institute Wednesday, speakers proposed changing the current "pay-as-you-go" system to a fund-based system that would privatize Social Security, allow more people to collect benefits and, they said, make the system more equitable for all Americans.
"What we need to do is say how can we create the best retirement system there is for all Americans," said Michael Tanner, director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice and director of health and welfare studies at Cato, a libertarian think tank, and one of the two speakers Wednesday. "This is going to be a complex issue that is going to require a lot of debate in Congress."
Tanner and Andrew Biggs, a Social Security analyst and assistant director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice, cited what they called problems with the current system. They said the program would begin to run a deficit within the next 15 years. By 2041, "Social Security will be legally and financially unable to pay the full promised benefits," Tanner said. "At that point, by law, Social Security must reduce the benefits it's paying by 25 percent or more."
Tanner said he believes that some type of change is required.
"What's really important is to understand that there is one option that is not really an option. And that is to do nothing," he said. "Every two years we wait, we will be costing about $325 billion more in order to make the transition to an individual account system."
Wednesday's event was the first in a series of several meetings Cato is sponsoring on Social Security.
Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., said he agrees that reform is necessary. "We need to tackle Social Security head on and get beyond the rhetoric and partisan politics," Sununu said in a statement. "We cannot leave this challenge to future generations, future Congresses. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less."
Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., said he plans to study proposals to allow people to invest in individual accounts. "Because Social Security faces serious challenges and will not survive without considerable reforms, I am examining proposals to allow individuals the option of investing a portion of their Social Security contribution into personal retirement savings accounts," Bass said in a statement.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said he agrees that having people invest in individual accounts is a significant part of reform.
"Many solutions that have been proposed include allowing workers to contribute a small portion of their own earnings in individually owned savings accounts," Gregg said in a statement. "I believe this is an important aspect of any meaningful Social Security reform if the transition costs can be funded without posing a significant hardship on the current system."
Not everyone in the New Hampshire congressional delegation agreed with the idea of privatizing Social Security. "I said (during the campaign) I was not in favor of privatizing Social Security, raising the retirement age, reducing benefits," Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said in an interview Wednesday. "I do think we need to have a long-term discussion in this country as to how we're going to protect and preserve Social Security in the future."
Under today's pay-as-you-go system, the money taken out of a worker's paycheck is not saved to pay that person's retirement benefits later but is used to pay benefits to today's retirees, Biggs said.
"Social Security isn't a savings and investment program," Biggs said. "It's essentially a transfer program."
According to Biggs, there are some downsides to this system, including its dependence on a favorable ratio of workers to retirees. However, given today's demographics, the system might not be able to sustain itself, he said.
"People are having smaller families," Biggs said. "Lower fertilities and lower birth rates mean fewer new workers entering the work force, fewer new workers paying into the system. At the same time, seniors are living longer. That means a larger population collecting out of the system."
According to Cato, there are 3.4 workers for each retiree today, a ratio the institute estimates will drop to 2.1 workers per retiree by 2030.
Biggs said that one option he's heard suggested is borrowing money. But he said that would not last. "You can't borrow forever," he said. "It's like a credit card. Your balance gets bigger and bigger and bigger. Eventually, there's a day of reckoning, and you have to pay it off."
Besides these problems, Tanner and Biggs said, the current Social Security system is unfair to African Americans, women, divorcees and younger Americans.
During the discussion, Biggs and Tanner proposed a solution that involves changing from the current system to a funded system that would invest today's workers' contributions to pay their future benefits, Biggs said.
One major advantage of the funded system, Biggs said, is that it would earn a "substantially higher rate of return."
"The upshot of that is that a funded system can pay the same level of benefits at around one-quarter of the cost as a pay-as-you-go system," Biggs said.
Under the Cato Institute's proposal, funding could come from the government or from individuals' personal accounts. "The economics are the same," Biggs said. "People across the spectrum agree we should have a funded system."
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Bass’ Anti-Fraud Bill Passes House
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — A bill introduced by Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., to prevent fraud, scams and deceptions against Americans during declared national disasters and emergencies passed the House late Wednesday.
The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act would double civil penalties for crimes relating to deception of the public during emergencies and disasters that have been declared by the President.
Under Bass’ bill, an “emergency period” would start the day the President declares a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act.
“I think it is very important that we don’t allow con artists and scam people to feel that it’s business as usual in times of national emergency,” Bass said yesterday.
The bill, which passed, 422-1, also would instruct courts to fine those who violate the act.
“I think it’s very effective,” Bass said. “All there needs to be is one incident and the country will know that double damages or double fines can be very significant.”
Bass’ legislation would amend the Federal Trade Commission Act, which deals with unfair competition and antitrust enforcement, by giving the FTC authority to increase civil punishments for those who exploit the public during national emergencies.
The FTC Act would be amended to state that any person, partnership or corporation found guilty under the bill’s provisions could be fined up to $22,000.
Bass first introduced the legislation in the last Congress, where it passed the House but saw no action in the Senate.
The bill was introduced after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Gregg to Introduce Malpractice Legislation
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., highlighting what he said was the need for medical liability reform, said yesterday he soon will introduce a bill that will address the “over-litigious situation in the area of medical care.”
Speaking at a health-care conference here sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups, Gregg, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said that doctors are constantly being sued and lawyers are collecting large amounts of money from the cases. “Almost 50 percent of the damages won in court systems go to the attorneys, which is outrageous,” Gregg said.
“It’s now become easier in this country to sue a doctor than to get an appointment with a doctor,” Gregg said.
“We know for example that trial lawyers look on doctors as their personal ATM machines,” he said. “As a result, doctors are fearing practicing the medicine which they train for and which our citizens need in order to benefit from.”
Because of the high chance doctors will get sued, many are practicing defensive medicine, which means they order extra tests to prevent the risk of misdiagnosing their patient and a possible ensuing lawsuit.
“We know that there is a huge cost of the system that is not the cost of litigation. The cost of the unintended consequence of excessive testing, excessive medical regimes being put in place, the practice of defensive medicine is driving up the cost of medicine erratically,” Gregg said.
To address these issues, along with others involving medical malpractice, Gregg said he plans to introduce legislation that will include caps on punitive damages and on suffering, as well as on attorneys’ fees. Despite the apparent need for these reforms, Gregg said, the big question is whether the bill will pass.
“We all know that we’re going up against a very entrenched, very powerful special interest, which is the American trial lawyers,” Gregg said, referring to the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
According to Gregg, the group is powerful and has “significant leverage,” especially with Democratic lawmakers.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Gregg and Others Introduce Legislation to Help Prevent a Nuclear Bomb Attack
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON-- Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill calling for a government task force to help prevent a so-called dirty bomb attack—low-grade nuclear material wrapped in a conventional bomb--on American soil.
“The fact is this is a legitimate threat,” Gregg said in an interview Wednesday. “Low-grade use of nuclear material can create a dirty bomb, and there’s no question that this is one of the more significant threats representing weapons of mass destruction that’s out there.”
Gregg, along with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that they were introducing legislation that calls for the task force to set up a tracking system to help locate nuclear and radioactive materials, including those that have been stolen or lost. The task force also would classify radioactive materials based on their risk and possible terrorist use.
In addition, the task force would establish a national system of fees and refunds to help make sure that sealed radioactive sources are returned or properly disposed.
The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would lead the task force. Other members of the task force would include the Secretary of State, the CIA and FBI directors, the Attorney General and the Homeland Security Secretary. Gregg said that acquiring nuclear material to make a bomb is easy, adding that he knows that terrorists are attempting to acquire it.
“Unfortunately, it’s too easy to obtain this material,” Gregg said. “It can be converted rather easily to a bomb type of vehicle and can be transported easily. We know that there are terrorist groups out there trying to get this type of material, and we know for example that Iraq has developed this as well.”
“The question is how do we stop the weapons, how do we track the sources of materials that we use for this type of weapon, and that’s what the goal of this legislation is,” Gregg said.
Gregg said he plans to introduce another bill to complement the task force measure. It calls for the president to select a single federal agency to create a radiological terrorism and emergency response center.
The bill would “create criminal penalties, (and) it’ll be focused on research programs to improve detection,” Gregg said.
The legislation would also establish an advisory committee on radiological terrorism, create a centralized, secure facility to store unwanted radioactive materials and set up an educational program to inform the public about radioactive materials and the impact a dirty bomb can have.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
Sununu says U.N., Congress Back War
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., said yesterday he believes that after Secretary of State Powell’s U.N. Security Council speech Wednesday and his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the following day, most people in both Congress and at the United Nations will back the war effort.
Powell told the committee that additional money in the budget will be required if the United States goes to war with Iraq.
“If the diplomatic effort and peace is not sustainable, there will be a supplemental budget,” Powell said. “I think we saw a very favorable response, not just from senators or House members here in Washington, but Security Council members themselves,” Sununu, a member of the committee, said in an interview after the hearing.
“Secretary Powell indicated some real positive movement and seemed to express some optimism that if the U.S. chose to push forward to develop an additional Security Council resolution, that effort would meet with some support.”
Powell also hinted that a potential war with Iraq could happen soon. “I think we are reaching an endgame in a matter of weeks not a matter of months,” Powell said.
Powell also spoke about other issues, including the State Department budget and international terrorism.
Addressing the terrorism concern, Powell said he believes the United States and its allies can help thwart the threats. “I believe we can keep the global war on terrorism intact,” he said. “I think the secretary’s presentation was very strong,” Sununu said afterward. “It’s never easy to come out to the House or Senate and talk about such a large budget.”
The President’s proposed fiscal year 2004 budget for the State Department and other international agencies is $27.4 billion.
After the secretary’s introductory remarks, Sununu asked Powell about the need to protect embassies throughout the world and whether there have been any security setbacks. Powell responded that he was unaware of any setbacks.
“It’s a positive sign,” Sununu said later. “It’s a very large program, upgrading embassies around the world to improve security to build new structures that will meet some of the new challenges, given the war on terrorism.”
According to Sununu, $1.5 billion is set aside in the 2004 budget to “build or upgrade seven embassies around the world, to build a new embassy in Germany and to upgrade some of the existing security at embassies.”
“It’s a tremendous amount of money, and construction overseas is difficult,” Sununu said. “So if there are obstacles or problems to the State Department being successful in implementing these security improvements, it’s helpful for Congress to hear about it as early as possible. I believe the State Department understands that.”
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
