Category: Spring 2003 Newswire
Collins Proposes Increase in Money Paid to Families of War Victims
WASHINGTON – When Maine Republican Sen. Susan M. Collins heard about the deaths in Iraq of two marines who had ties to Maine, she started thinking about how the United States compensates the families of those servicemen and women who die in action.
She discovered that the immediate benefit given to families of victims to help with pressing financial needs is only $6,000 and has not increased since 1991, the year of the first Gulf War. To address the issue, Collins introduced legislation on Wednesday that would double the payment to $12,000.
“We can never fully repay the debt that we owe to those who have lost their lives in serving our nation,” she said in an interview yesterday. “But this is a small step that we can take to honor their memory and to help recognize their sacrifice.”
The payment to family members is typically issued within 72 hours and is in addition to general death benefits. Collins has also suggested that the legislation be retroactive to 2001 so that the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan can also get the increased benefits.
Military associations call the increase overdue and say victims’ families need more help than they have received in the past.
“For so long, nothing’s really been done to recognize the families,” said Jacqueline Garrick, executive director of America’s Heroes of Freedom, a group started to educate and assist families and survivors of the Sept. 11 attacks. Garrick speculated that “given the backdrop” of war in Iraq, it would be unlikely for Congress not to pass Collins’ legislation, which is co-sponsored by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Collins said that she hoped Congress would “move swiftly” to pass the bill and that she had spoken to the Defense Department and secured the support of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who indicated that the Pentagon will back the legislation.
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
Connecticut Congressional Delegation in Favor of Supplemental
By Bill Yelenak
WASHINGTON – Members of Connecticut's congressional delegation said Tuesday they will support President George W. Bush's supplemental budget proposal to fund the war effort, although they disagree with some of the key details and question how much the rebuilding effort for Iraq will ultimately cost.
Bush is asking for $74.7 billion to finance the war, with $62.6 billion of that targeted for the military and the war on terror. The remaining amount would be split between providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people and increasing U.S. homeland security.
Bush said some of the supplemental request was to help reduce the costs of the war for "coalition members and friends in the Middle East" and to further fight terrorism throughout the world.
"The funding request to Congress will help reduce the economic burdens these countries have experienced in supporting our efforts," Bush said. "Also included are funds essential to waging and helping our partners wage the broader war on terror, which continues in Afghanistan, in the Philippines and elsewhere."
U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-5) said she supported the President's proposal and felt it was important that the armed forces abroad are well equipped for the duration of the war. She said it was also vital for humanitarian aid to directly follow the military action.
"It's extremely important that we be able to fulfill the words we have spoken, which is this is not a war against the Iraqi people, but a war against this Iraqi leadership," Johnson said in a phone interview yesterday. "Therefore, we will bring behind our armed forces humanitarian relief."
Johnson said that Iraq was short of medicine, food and water in some areas and that the United States needs "to demonstrate that we care about the situation for the people."
U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-1) said he would also vote for the supplemental proposal but said more money will need to be allocated in the future, specifically with the future of the Iraqi people in mind.
"I think many regard it as the first of several supplementals that may come down the pike because nobody can predict how long" the war will last, Larson said. "Then that doesn't even address the long-term humanitarian aspects, and the administration still hasn't come forward with what they believe those costs to be."
Larson also said he opposes the Bush Administration's proposed $726 billion tax cut because it is not be the right time for a tax cut.
"This is a time of national sacrifice, and we really ought to focus on making sure that we're providing for training and equipping and the well-being and care of our troops, and also that we're focusing on homeland security and getting money out to our first responders," Larson said.
Larson also said he was not sure if the administration's proposed $4.25 billion for homeland security was enough, citing several concerns within Connecticut alone.
"I've heard from all of my municipalities, and we face some very serious health concerns as they relate to our ability to deal with terror in the state of Connecticut, as well as the appropriate training, equipping, commonality of communication," Larson said. "All are uppermost in the minds of our chief elected officials and they haven't received the monies that they need for that.
"It's too early to say is four billion enough," he said. "My guess is it's not."
But Johnson said the $4 billion included in the supplemental budget to improve homeland security over the next six months is "a lot of money."
"I think one could ask 'Can it be spent wisely in that period of time?' " Johnson said. "I think there will be some questions about what could be done with $4 billion in six months, and those questions are merited."
Johnson said she felt the money would be directed more toward the bigger cities, something last year's homeland security money may have missed out on.
"I would suspect this four billion would be quite aggressively targeted at New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Houston - the cities that are most likely to be the targets," Johnson said, adding that it may also be aimed at specific facilities that could be targets.
"I think right at the moment we certainly want to make sure areas that are densely populated and have systems that are vulnerable are protected as best we can," she said.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) released a statement saying he was also in support of the troops. "They deserve everything they need to end this war as soon as possible." However, Dodd said, he found it "disturbing" that the President made the request for nearly $75 billion just as he was trying to push through "a massive tax cut to benefit the most affluent."
"That's simply wrong considering our nation is at war and our servicemen and women are being asked to give the ultimate sacrifice halfway around the world," Dodd said.
Dodd and a majority of his Senate colleagues voted 51-48 for an amendment to the 2004 fiscal year budget that would slash the President's tax cut in half, from $726 billion to $350 billion through 2013.
Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said Lieberman would vote for the President's supplemental request, adding that "winning the war has to be one of our top national priorities, and it can't be shortchanged."
However, Kovacevich said, the senator was "disappointed that the request does not provide sufficient resources for postwar Iraq." Kovacevich said Lieberman, like Dodd, also felt it was the wrong time for a tax cut, saying it "may threaten our ability to both pay for the war and bolster homeland security."
Bill Yelenak, a Boston University student, works at the Boston University Washington News Service in Washington, D.C. His telephone number is 202-756-2860 ext: 114 and his email is byelenak@newbritainherald.com.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
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.
Kerry’s Presidential Campaign Shapes Up with Heavy Fundraising
By Heidi Taylor
WASHINGTON—With less than 600 days until the next presidential election, the Democratic field is filling with contenders in what promises to be a crowded race for the party's bid. And while several of the Democratic presidential hopefuls boast big names, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has positioned himself near the top-of the fundraising race at least.
According to reports filed to the Federal Election Commission in January detailing his fundraising efforts in the 2001-02 cycle, Kerry raised nearly $3.2 million, and had over $3 million cash on hand in his presidential campaign account as of December 31, 2002. He also reported $20,000 in his political action committee, Citizen Soldier Fund.
Kerry has been aggressive in his fundraising efforts since the beginning of this year as well, wooing Iowa Democrats for the Iowa caucuses-the first in the nation-which have proven to be crucial in the presidential campaign process, and holding major fundraisers in Boston and New York recently, raising over $2 million in Boston and half that in New York.
As of the year-end FEC filing, Kerry's closest competitor in fundraising was Rep. Richard Gephardt, MO, who reported nearly $1 million less, with $2.4 million cash on hand from his House campaign account, which he will transfer to his presidential campaign account.
In spite of Kerry's fundraising success however, the crowd of Democratic contenders may be heard sighing in relief, as it appears unlikely that he will tap into the nearly $6 million family fortune he shares with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry. Using that money, many strategists believe, would put Kerry at an advantage over his rivals.
His wife since 1995, Heinz Kerry inherited her late husband Sen. John Heinz's ketchup fortune in 1991 when he died in a plane crash. But Kerry has said time and again that his wife's money is his wife's money, and that he is planning to run on his own initiative, as he has in the past.
Kerry has long been a proponent of legitimate fundraising that the people of the country can be involved in, arguing as a Senator for public funding of campaigns. In his four Senate runs in fact, Kerry relied very minimally on political action committee contributions, garnering most of his money-98 percent in his 2002 Senate campaign according to The Center for Responsive Politics-from individual contributors.
But choosing public financing for the primary campaign would set spending limits that campaign experts say could put Kerry at a disadvantage, in the case that other contenders don't use the public funding.
In the primaries, contenders have the option to accept federal funds-the government matches every dollar raised from individual contributions under $250-but the candidate also must comply with a spending limit of about $45 million. If a contender chooses not to accept the matching funds in the primary, they are not subject to any limitations.
According to William Heineman, chair of the History and Government Department at Northern Essex Community College, until recently, almost all successful presidential campaigners have chosen to use public funding. However, things changed with George Bush's 2000 presidential campaign, Heineman said, adding that because Bush turned down public spending and so was not subject to limitation, he basically blew his Republican competition away in the primaries.
"He was an incredible fundraiser," Heineman said, adding that Bush raised over $100 million dollars, nearly five times more than anyone had ever raised before. Where a competitive election in the 1990s cost an average of $20 million, Heineman said, "Bush blew that out of the water," adding that one way to look at it is that Bush sucked all the oxygen out of the water, basically making it a one-man race.
"I don't know if Bush was a fluke," Heineman said, but the new factor since Bush's campaign is that presidential hopefuls have now seen a candidate opt out of public funds, raise huge amounts of money, and then win the election.
A few of the other Democratic presidential campaigners, including Gephardt and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, CT, have not signaled whether they will use public funding.
Published in The Newburyport Daily News, The Gloucester Daily News, and The Salem News in Massachusetts.
Gregg Amendment to Increase Special Ed. Funding
By Kim Forrest
WASHINGTON--Keene schools' special-education director praised Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) on Tuesday as Gregg continued his push for increased federal funds for special education that would add to the increases New Hampshire has seen during the past seven years.
"I'm glad something passed," Bruce Thielen, School Administrative Unit 29's director of special education said. "We've been short on [federal] money for a couple of dozen years."
The Senate has approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 Senate budget resolution sponsored by Gregg that would increase federal funds for special education by $3.29 billion over the next six years. The vote last Friday was 89-10.
These funds would be allocated under Part B of the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which gives states money to provide special-education services to preschool and school-age children with special needs.
While the Senate Budget Resolution had already incorporated a $1 billion IDEA increase through Fiscal Year 2009, the Gregg Amendment would increase IDEA grants to more than $11 billion for 2004 and more than $13.5 billion for 2005.
"Passage of the Budget Resolution clearly demonstrates that the Senate puts a high priority on meeting the needs of special education, and doing so in a fiscally responsible way." Gregg said in a statement.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorized the federal government to provide 40 percent of the cost of special education. But Congress has never come close to appropriating funds to meet that promise. The Gregg amendment would increase the federal share to 26 percent, but Gregg, in a news release, said it would also put the federal spending on a "direct glide path" toward 40 percent in six years. IDEA is up for reauthorization by Congress this year.
The money for the Gregg Amendment would come from a commensurate cutback in the overall budget.
New Hampshire has seen a major increase in money for special education since 1996, when it received just over $10.1 million. This year, it expects to get almost $36 million.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2000-01 school year, 30,077 New Hampshire students ages 3-21 were in special-education programs, about 14.4 percent of the state's 208,461 students. In Keene's School Administrative Unit 29, there are approximately 905 students in special-education programs, the district's Thielen said.
He said that each school district uses the IDEA money for whatever special-education purposes it chooses, so long as it fits the federal government's basic guidelines. For School Administrative Unit 29, he said, the funds would allow the unit to hire additional teachers at the preschool level, institute special-education programs related to speech pathology, bring in academic evaluators and help with staff development.
Thielen added that the extra money would help meet the increase in special-education students, so that administrators can "convert time and energy over to the kids."
New Hampshire's junior Senator, John Sununu (R-NH), expressed praise for Gregg's amendment, saying that he, too, hopes for the full promised 40 percent of special- education costs in the near future.
"I commend Senator Gregg's leadership in helping to bring additional special-education resources to local school districts in New Hampshire and across the nation," he said in a statement. "The resources will go directly to local school districts for their immediate education priorities."
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Cause of Helicopter Crash Remains Unknown
WASHINGTON – The military is launching an investigation into the cause of the helicopter crash that killed Capt. Jay T. Aubin and Cpl. Brian Kennedy, two marines with ties to Maine, early Friday morning.
The CH-46E Sea Knight helicopter went down in Kuwait, about nine miles from the Iraqi border, at 7 p.m. Eastern time, 3 a.m. Iraq time. Defense officials said there was no indication that the helicopter, which had four U.S. and eight British marines on board, was brought down by enemy fire.
Typically, the large Sea Knight is used to transport troops, supplies and equipment from ships at sea or base camps to operations sites, according to the United States Marine Corps. It can carry up to 24,3000 pounds at takeoff and has two large rotors that spin in opposite directions, as opposed to most helicopters that have one set of main rotors and a tail rotor for balance.
First procured in 1964, the helicopter line is old and has not been replaced since it was introduced. It is "eventually expected to be replaced" with the V-22 Osprey, a significantly different type of aircraft that is still in testing, according to Maj. Mike Neumann, a spokesman for the U.S. Marine Corps.
The Sea Knights are sometimes affectionately called "frogs," said former Navy helicopter pilot Lt. Jim Zoulias, a Boston University ROTC professor. "People will always joke about the frogs as being a very old aircraft," he said, recalling the story of one colleague who said the aircraft were "older than he was."
The average age of a H-46E Sea Knight is 34-and-a-half years, according to Bob Coble of the Naval Air Public Affaris. For all aircraft, the average age is much higher - about 18 years, he said. The Marine Corps refused to speculate whether the crash could have been the cause of an old or malfunctioning aircraft.
Zoulias, who has flown H-60 Sea Hawk helicopters - these are slightly smaller and have the typical top rotor and tail rotor - speculated that the innate dangers that exist for any helicopter pilot may have been at fault.
"Inherently, flying a helicopter that low to the ground is dangerous," he said. Other factors could have included poor visibility because of dust or the difficulty of flying in formation with night vision goggles. Gunflashes, from enemy or friendly fire, can also have a disorienting effect, he said.
Three of the marines were based at Camp Pendleton, in San Diego, California, and one was from the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Arizona. Memorial services will be held at the bases.
The Maine delegation extended its sympathies to the families of the victims.
"Like all Mainers, I am saddened by the deaths of Captain Jay Aubin and Corporal Brian Kennedy." Rep. Thomas Allen said in a statement. "These brave young men have given what Abraham Lincoln so eloquently deemed 'the last full measure of devotion' to their country."
Published in The Kennebec Journal and The Morning Sentinel, in Maine.
Kerry Campaign Keeps Eye On Tone Of War
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, will be keeping a close eye on what he says about U.S. policy on Iraq now that the United States has launched a military assault on that country.
With U.S. forces in the early stages of combat, the Bay State senator's presidential campaign will continue on a "day-to-day" basis, campaign spokeswoman Kelley Benander said Wednesday. But, the campaign will be mindful of what activities and discussion may be seen as inappropriate during wartime.
"Like every campaign, we'll be adjusting our campaign schedule on an as-appropriate basis," Ms. Benander said. "We're certainly not suspending all of our activities, but we will, of course, be sensitive to tone, to taste, to the national mood, and making scheduling decisions accordingly."
While Sen. Kerry continued this week to lash out against the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts in the months leading to war, the campaign is paying heed to the tone of its statements, she said. Sen. Kerry has said he has thrown his full support behind the U.S. troops now that the conflict is underway.
In a statement Thursday, Sen. Kerry rallied behind the war effort, saying that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein missed his chance to avoid war by refusing to give in to President Bush's 48-hour ultimatum and go into exile.
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism," Sen. Kerry said. "If so, the only exit strategy is victory. This is our common mission and the world's cause. We're in this together."
Sen. Kerry said he hoped there will be a minimum of U.S. and civilian casualties during the conflict and called for the administration to engage "the community of nations to rebuild Iraq."
Sen. Kerry's attacks on the Bush administration escalated earlier this week, particularly in a biting statement in response to President's Bush's national address Monday night. After the president called for Mr. Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours, Sen. Kerry maintained that the administration's handling of the run-up to war "could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating."
"When it comes to decisions about national security and sending troops into harm's way, you speak from your heart, your gut and your head -- and in my case, from the perspective of one who has seen and experienced war," Sen. Kerry said. "When it comes to [keeping] Americans safe, you have to focus on what's important, not what's popular."
Over the last week, Sen. Kerry's travels have taken him across the country, from last weekend's Democratic state convention in California to Sunday's St. Patrick's Day roast in South Boston. Reports indicated that the senator would be traveling across Florida Wednesday and Thursday, but those plans were scrapped as the Senate debated next year's budget all day Wednesday. Plans to continue campaigning in New Hampshire this weekend currently remain as scheduled, Ms. Benander said.
Nationwide polls of Democratic voters routinely place Sen. Kerry in the top three among the nine Democrats running for president, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.
While all of the Democratic candidates may be in a tricky position rhetorically now that the war has begun, Sen. Kerry's may be trickier than most, according to Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Sen. Kerry has taken a highly nuanced position on the Iraqi conflict, blasting the administration while supporting the use of military force, he said.
With the nation at war, Mr. Ornstein said, Sen. Kerry's criticisms of the administration may be over for the time being.
"That was before the bombs started. It's different now," he said. "You're subjecting yourself to a potential firestorm if you criticize once our troops are actually facing hostile fire."
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
Rep. Frank Says He Would Consider Senate Run
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON – Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, said Thursday he would think "very seriously" about running for Sen. John Kerry's U.S. Senate seat if the Massachusetts Democrat wins the presidency next year.
"If Kerry were to become president, I would think about it," Rep. Frank said.
Rep. Frank, who has already endorsed Sen. Kerry's bid for the White House, is the first Democrat in the state to express an interest in the seat. He disclosed his interest during an interview last week with Bay Windows, a Boston gay and lesbian newspaper.
Rep. Frank stressed that he was only answering the paper's question "honestly" and that he is not making any concrete plans for a run. Even if Kerry won a presidential bid, the seat would probably not be available until 2006.
"It was nothing that I initiated. People asked me," Rep. Frank said. "I'm not planning on it; I'm not working toward it. I'm not doing anything to get the story out."
The congressman said this is the first time he has ever considered running for the Senate. The last opportunity, he noted, was in 1984, when then-Lt. Gov. Kerry ran successfully for the seat held by retiring Sen. Paul Tsongas.
"I had no interest in it at that time," Rep. Frank said. "I had just been through two very exhausting House races. I never gave it another thought. We had two very excellent senators."
However, Philip Johnston, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said he believes, based on private conversations with the congressman, that Rep. Frank has been interested in the Senate for "a period of time."
"But I think it's becoming more real now because of John Kerry's presidential candidacy," Mr. Johnston said. "In Massachusetts, we expect that John will be the nominee."
In the event of a Kerry presidency, Rep. Frank said his decision may ultimately depend on the Democrats' success in the 2004 elections. Since January, he has been the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. If the Democrats were to win back control of the House, which they have not held since 1994, Rep. Frank would become chairman of the committee.
"Being a newly selected chairman -- that would be hard to give up," he said. If, on the other hand, the Democrats are still in minority, he said, it "would make a lot of sense" for him to seek a Senate seat.
Rep. Frank has represented the New Bedford area in the U.S. House since 1980.
If Sen. Kerry were elected president, Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, would be in a position to appoint his successor, who would serve until November 2006. Kerry spokesman Tony Wyche said there has been no talk yet as to whether Sen. Kerry would give up his seat before the general election in November 2004.
In a statement, Sen. Kerry complimented Rep. Frank's service in the House.
"He's a remarkable public servant, and he's done so much for Massachusetts and the nation," Sen. Kerry said. "He's smart as hell, he's tenacious, he's witty and he's a fighter.
"Barney speaks his mind and argues his case better than just about anyone. Just ask Dick Armey," he said, referring to the former House majority leader. Mr. Armey once caused a stir by referring to Rep. Frank, who is openly gay, as "Barney Fag."
Mr. Johnston, who considers Rep. Frank an old friend, said the contest to succeed Sen. Kerry would probably be intense. However, he said, Rep. Frank would do well in any likely race. The congressman would bring with him a strong base of support, particularly among progressive Democrats and organized labor, he said.
"If he were to run, Barney being Barney, I think it would be a race that would attract national attention," Mr. Johnston said.
Sen. Mark Montigny, who represents much of Rep. Frank's district in the State House, said he was "not shocked" by Rep. Frank's interest in the Senate and also predicted his chances of success would be high.
"I think he's a formidable congressman, probably as strong as any sitting congressman down there," he said. "It doesn't surprise me that after a significant number of very successful terms in Congress that he would look at the U.S. Senate."
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
CT Delegation Discusses Funding, Staffing Issues with State Firefighters
By Bill Yelenak
WASHINGTON – Members of the Connecticut congressional delegation met with about 40 state firefighters Wednesday to discuss the firefighters' staffing and spending concerns, homeland security matters and war with Iraq.
Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Reps. Robert Simmons (R-2), Rosa DeLauro (D-3) and Christopher Shays (R-4) talked to state firefighters about the problems they are facing in receiving funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as well as the support that should be given to the American soldiers abroad.
The International Association of Fire Fighters, to which the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut belongs, listed the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement (FIRE) Act and homeland security as two of the main topics in their 2003 legislative issues book. The FIRE act became law last year and is designed to allow FEMA to give money to local fire departments for training and equipment.
Dodd told the firefighters that he and other members of the state delegation would keep fighting to try to make sure Congress allocates the full $900 million authorized by the act. Dodd pegged the current budgeted amount at $750 million.
Tom DiScipio, the president of the Hartford Firefighters Association, praised both senators for their knowledge of the needs of fire departments but said other members of Congress may not be as well versed.
Our senators "understand the differences between what police, public health and fire provide," DiScipio said. "Unfortunately, that has not echoed in the halls of Congress, and I believe through Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Dodd we'll get those problems across."
DiScipio said the biggest problem for Hartford firefighters is adequate funding. "Money drives everything," he said. "The only way to keep the manpower the way it is is if the federal government and the state come through and give us the monies we need to do our job."
Dodd and Lieberman also discussed the conflict in Iraq with the firefighters. Dodd said that members of Congress are hoping for the best results but that there is no way to know for sure what will happen.
"It is something we hope will go very, very well, but no one can honestly say very certainly how these things will turn out," Dodd said.
Dodd said even Americans who were previously against the war should be supporting their soldiers and should "keep them in mind in the coming days."
"The young men and women in uniform now have got their lives in jeopardy, and every single American, regardless of their political persuasion, should rally around these people," Dodd said.
Lieberman told the firefighters he had a perfect solution for all of their concerns.
"I have a simple answer, maybe too simple, to the kind of problems that you shouldn't be facing that you are facing right now," Lieberman said with a smile. "We need to elect a new President of the United States in November 2004."
Lieberman also said he doesn't understand what the Bush administration is trying to do by cutting taxes and going to war at the same time.
"We're about to go to war," Lieberman said. "There has never been a President who has attempted to push through an enormous tax cut beyond what we could afford when we're going to war."
Lieberman told the firefighters the foremost responsibility of the government is "to protect the security of the American people."
"There's no liberty without security," Lieberman said. "That's what you are all about."
Bill Yelenak, a Boston University student, works at the Boston University Washington News Service in Washington, D.C. His telephone number is 202-756-2860 ext: 114 and his email is byelenak@newbritainherald.com.
Published in The New Britain Herald, in Connecticut.
