Category: Washington, DC
Bass Calls for House GOP to Elect New Leaders
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 – Congressman Charles Bass (R-N.H.) Monday called for House Republicans to select new leaders at the beginning of next year.
“We ought to have new leadership as soon as the session resumes in January just because I think it would be good for our conference to begin the second session of Congress under a new leadership,” Bass said Wednesday. “The leadership isn’t as clearly defined as it should be.”
Former Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas) has been temporarily replaced by interim House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a situation that Bass said takes the focus off important issues.
“Tom Delay has his issues in the Texas judicial system which need to be worked out, but his problems should not be the main agenda items of the Republican conference in the second session,” Bass said. “It should be the agenda that we want to pursue.”
While Bass acknowledged that he was speaking only for himself, other moderate Republicans agreed with his assessment and see him as taking on the role of a leader in Congress.
Congressman Joe Schwarz (R-Mich.), who sees Bass as not only being a leader among the moderate Republicans, but also as a potential national leader of the party, agrees that there should be leadership elections in January.
“It doesn’t serve the party itself to be in a situation where leadership from the majority leader down has an asterisk by it and then at the bottom it says temporary,” Schwarz said. “For the purpose of moving the agenda forward it probably would be appropriate to have a leadership election after the first of the year.”
“Charlie Bass has really blossomed as a leader in Congress,” Congressman Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who co chairs the moderate Republican Tuesday Group with Bass, said in a press statement Wednesday.
Bass said that he had spoken with the current House leadership about the need for a new election and did not want to criticize Blunt, who he believes is doing a “great job.” He said that newly-elected leadership might provide “a little bit more unity” among Republicans.
“I want our Congress to have a productive and successful second session and I think part of the key to that will be to have a stable leadership.” Bass said.
###
Lawmakers Look to Protect Religion in Workplace
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - When it passed in 1965, the Civil Rights Act was a landmark step for the rights of black Americans. Now an unlikely, bipartisan group of legislators wants to expand the law's protections to include religious working Americans.
At issue is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would, among other things, require employers to make a "bona fide" effort to accommodate an employee's religion-related needs and would specifically exempt the way an employee dresses and when they take time off from being included in consideration of whether he or she can perform the essential functions of the job.
Under current law, employees may be let go for their religious practices or observances if accommodating these needs constitutes an undue burden on the employer. The bill would define more specifically what would constitute an undue burden on employers.
According to Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), one of the bill's sponsors in the House, the courts have interpreted that burden too loosely.
"The Supreme Court has effectively thwarted the intent of Congress," he said.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), the bill's other House sponsor, agreed. She said that some court rulings indicate that "any hardship is an undue hardship."
Souder said that the bill enjoys "broad bipartisan support" in both houses of Congress and added that it has caused unexpected people to reach across the aisle - it is sponsored in the Senate by Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) and. John Kerry (D-Mass.).
The House Education and Workforce Committee's subcommittee on employer-employee relations held hearings Thursday on the bill.
Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem) said the hearing provided a welcome opportunity to learn more about the bill and noted the importance of achieving the right balance between employee's rights and employer's needs.
"We must protect workers' rights, including their freedom from all types of discrimination, religious or otherwise," said Tierney.
One dissent to the generally positive view of the bill came from Camille A. Olson, who was at the hearing representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to Olson, the current protections of employees' religious civil rights are sufficient.
Samuel A. Marcosson, the associate dean of the University of Louisville's Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, also voiced concerns that the bill might "cross the line into non-neutrality."
"Government must be neutral between religions and between religion and non-religion," he said.
Marcosson expressed concern that the bill excluded non-economic factors that could contribute to an undue hardship determination, such as whether accommodation of a religious person's needs would infringe on the rights of that person's co-workers.
Richard Land, the only expert witness at the hearing who was neither a lawyer nor a member of Congress, urged the subcommittee to pass the bill.
Land, who was there representing the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said it is important for citizens not just to have the right to believe what they want, but also the right to act on that belief.
"This principle unites people of diverse faith because we all have challenges to our religious practice," he said. "To protect one - all must be protected."
The bill's future is unclear because is not currently scheduled for a vote in the committee.
####
Lawmakers Oppose Alaska Drilling
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - House leaders agreed Wednesday to drop a plan from the budget bill to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling following fierce opposition, led by Congressman Charles Bass (R- N.H.).
"We're happy to report that at this point the budget package will not contain provisions to drill in the Arctic refuge," Bass said at a press conference Thursday. "My colleagues who in the face of considerable pressure -- peer pressure and pressure from leadership -- stuck to their guns and sent a clear message to leadership that we would not vote for this package no matter how long the vote is open, no matter what arm-twisting occurs, no matter who calls on the telephone, and we plan to project that position forward to the final conference committee report."
The debate centers on a 1.5-million-acre section of the 19-million-acre refuge. President Bush has made drilling there a centerpiece of his energy policy, and oil companies have pushed for years for the legislation, arguing that they can drill without ruining the wilderness. Opponents argue that the entire refuge should be left undeveloped.
The language originally in the Deficit Reduction Act would have allowed drilling for oil and natural gas in the refuge, which is also known as ANWR. Bass, who is the co-chairman of the House's Tuesday Group, a moderate Republican organization, authored a letter to the House leadership stating his strong opposition to the inclusion of this language in the budget bill.
"Opening up ANWR to drilling would dramatically shift U.S. environmental policy," Bass said in a press release Tuesday. "A change this significant necessitates an open, substantive policy debate that can only occur in a stand-alone measure."
Bass's letter was signed by 25 other moderate Republican members of Congress and presented to the House leadership, prompting the leaders to remove the provision from the bill. The members opposed the drilling provision on environmental grounds.
"The critical value of this Refuge to the Arctic and sub-Arctic wildlife is undeniable," Bass wrote in the letter. "Rather than reversing decades of protection for this publicly held land, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings than could come from ANWR."
Other members critical of the drilling proposal made similar points at Thursday's press conference, citing the preservation of this area as a major concern.
"I am not anti-energy. I'm not anti-oil drilling, but ANWR should stand as a pristine area that should not be despoiled by oil drilling," Congressman Joe Schwarz (R- MI) said Thursday. "There are numbers of things that could be done there without actually drilling in ANWR."
The bill, which was scheduled to be voted on Thursday, was delayed until next week. Assuming it passes the House, it will then go to a conference of House and Senate legislators who will iron out the differences between the two chambers' bills. Because the Senate version of the bill has the drilling provision, it could be reattached there. However, Bass and his moderate Republican coalition intend to continue their opposition.
"We will not waver in our position," Bass said at the press conference on behalf of those who signed the letter.
The deficit reduction bill was passed last week by the Senate. Senator Judd Gregg (R- NH), who voted in favor of the bill, supports seeking energy resources in the refuge.
"Any energy policy should balance the need for energy resources with the need to protect natural resources and the environment," Gregg said in a press release Thursday. "Given the extraordinarily high prices of gas and oil this fall, and the instability of energy from foreign sources, we have a responsibility to find ways to increase the domestic supply of energy and to stabilize the prices of energy.. While it takes a bit of political courage to offer possible solutions to meet our energy needs, I feel we must continue to take the necessary steps to make our country more energy-independent."
Bass and his coalition of other moderate Republicans maintain that using the refuge does not offer long-term solutions for the energy shortage.
"It provides absolutely no alternatives to our continuing dependence on oil as a main source of transportation," Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R- Md.) said Thursday. "If we can hold the line -- and we will hold the line -- on this provision of ANWR we will begin to open up a much more urgent dialogue on alternatives to oil."
Bass and his congressional colleagues are hopeful of success in preventing the passage of the drilling provisions. "It hasn't looked good for protecting the Arctic wilderness for some time now, and I think the situation looks a lot better," Bass said.
###
Oil Executives Face The Heat In Washington
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - The chief executives of five major oil companies were in the hot seat Wednesday as they defended their companies' record-breaking profits before Congress.
In recent months, much of the debate on Capitol Hill focused on addressing the country's growing energy needs in the face of escalating prices. Members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, meeting jointly, questioned the oil industry panelists as to how much of the industry's profits were a result of price gouging during a time of uncertainty made worse by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
"In the midst of suffering, in the midst of sacrifice," companies' raking in so much money is a cause for question, said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), co-chairman of the Commerce Committee.
For instance, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest non-government petroleum company, with over 86,000 employees and a market capitalization of about $350 billion, posted third-quarter earnings close to $10 billion.
Lee R. Raymond, chief executive at Exxon, said that although the petroleum industry's earnings are at historic highs, when they are compared to other industries on earnings per dollar of revenue, "we are line with the average of U.S. industries. Our numbers are huge because the scale of our industry is huge."
Raymond, joined at the witness table by chief executives from Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP America Inc. and Shell Oil Co., said that the company's profits have always been reinvested into capital expenditures and research.
In total, the five oil companies earned more than $25 billion during the three months that ended Sept. 30.
Inouye questioned Raymond about reports that an Exxon-branded station in the storm-affected Gulf Coast region raised gasoline prices by 24 cents in 24 hours. If price gouging is defined as "unconscionably excessive," he asked, "then isn't this price gouging?"
Raymond said while he couldn't confirm the specific incident, Exxon doesn't control prices except in the case of company-owned stations. As for wholesale prices on gasoline sold to independently owned stations, Raymond said the corporate directive was to minimize price increases but without lowering prices to the point of causing a gasoline shortage.
"The concept we had was not to price gouge," Raymond said.
Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) urged other legislators not to institute a windfall profits tax on oil companies, as was done in the 1980s. He said reports showed that the tax resulted in an increase in the cost of gas, a three to six percent decline in domestic oil production and an increase in oil imports.
Many senators wanted explanations of how gasoline is priced. James J. Mulva, chief executive at ConocoPhillips, said that crude oil prices are set by the world markets and that growing demand, geopolitical problems in the Middle East and limited production capacity have driven prices up.
"While ConocoPhillips doesn't expect the prices we see today to be sustained, we do want to give you an appreciation of the challenges that lie ahead in supplying the U.S. and the world's energy needs," he said.
Another influence on the market is speculators, or commodity traders, who bid on crude oil in the financial markets and drive prices up further, the witnesses said. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR.) said he wanted to rein in speculators with legislation.
Wyden asked the witnesses if their companies needed incentives and tax breaks to operate, to which they all answered no. "Then I hope you'll support me when I try to rescind these tax breaks," he said.
Supporters of such breaks argue that the purpose isn't to assist the big oil giants but to help smaller refineries around the country.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) brought up executive compensation and said while the industry executives are reaping huge bonuses on top of already huge salaries, the average American is struggling to get by and is concerned about home heating costs this winter.
###
New Hampshire Lawmakers Seek More Special Ed Funding
WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 - Three decades ago, Congress approved landmark legislation aimed at improving the educational opportunities for children with disabilities. But the law has never been funded to the level originally promised.
Now, the members of New Hampshire's congressional delegation are pushing for Congress to finally fully fund the program.
The 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act promised that 40 percent of the additional cost of educating these students would come from federal funding. However the federal government has never funded more than 18 percent of those additional costs in the 30 years since the act was passed. And from 1975 until 1995 the funding level actually hovered under six percent.
"There is no program that impacts local school districts more than the cost of special education," said Congressman Charles Bass (R-N.H.), a long-time advocate of increased federal funding for special education. "This authorization mandate, passed so many years ago in Congress, is still valid and needs to be met -- the promise needs to be kept. If there ever was an unfunded mandate that has not been met it is this one in terms of both its cost as well as its importance."
Under the leadership of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who then chaired the Senate education committee, Congress in 2004 reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, overhauling it and promising full funding by 2011. But even with the 2004 legislation, Bass believes that additional measures will be necessary to get full funding by the date promised.
Bass introduced a bill on June 30 to fully fund special education and ensure that the federal government would be paying the full 40 percent by 2011. The bill would mandate annual increases in the funding so that the federal government would have to meet its promise to local school districts.
"That would certainly have a significant impact on every school district in the state," Bass said.
Currently there are concerns among both Republicans and Democrats about the federal deficit and the increases in federal spending for both Iraq and for hurricane relief.
"This was why the bill that Mr. Bass has introduced lays out a plan to provide full funding over time," said Alissa Southworth, spokesperson for Bass. "It sets us on the path to full funding by 2011 with spending increasing incrementally."
Jamie Hopkins, the president-elect of Council for Exceptional Children, an international organization focused on improving education for students with disabilities, recently met with members of the House to discuss her concerns over the current low levels of federal funding for special education.
"It continues to put a great burden on school districts that end up having to take funds away from students in general education in order to pay for special education and that's very frustrating," Hopkins said. "Some children are missing out on what they need. It's really becoming very stressful to get the money in order to educate our kids."
New Hampshire Senators John Sununu and Gregg have both supported funding for the program in New Hampshire. Sununu, who served three terms in the House before being elected to the Senate, has played an integral role in funding increases from $2 billion in Fiscal Year 1997 to approximately $10.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2005 for the Individuals with Disabilities Education program.
Because of the continually increasing cost of special education the burden on New Hampshire's tax payers has consistently risen since the law was first passed. Since it was first enacted, the percentage of those enrolled in special education, served by Part B of the law and identified as having learning disabilities, increased, the Department of Education reported to Congress in 1994.
Part B is the section of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that funds the services for children ages three to 21. Under Part B, data is collected concerning children educated between those ages.
The report noted that between 1976 and 1994, those identified as having learning disabilities under Part B of IDEA has increased from 23.8 percent to 51.1 percent of all students with disabilities. Since 1994, that number has continued to grow. The cause for these increases continues to be debated.
"There are medical procedures and diagnoses and assessments in medicine that are more efficient and effective in identifying the incidence of a disability or a disease so that over a period of time it's higher -- not necessarily because the incidence is higher, but because of their being better at diagnosing what is there," said Robert Wells, education consultant in the Bureau for Special Education in New Hampshire.
Medical advances and the increase in the ability to identify learning disabilities are two of the most frequently mentioned reasons for increases in the percentage of students identified as having learning disabilities. However, there is some speculation that the extra funding given to special education may have affected the increase as well.
"Where there is not money to provide appropriate education for everybody, kids get identified as having special needs," said Wells. "If there was more money for just good education, certified teachers, qualified people, a lot of the kids that get identified as having learning disabilities wouldn't even pop up on the radar screen.
Bruce Thielen, the director of special education for SAU 29 in New Hampshire, has been following the percentage increase since he began working there in 1989.
"In 1988-89, 8.9 percent of our students were classified as disabled and now it is close to 17 percent," Thielen said. "That's a huge increase."
Thielen also recognizes that there are a variety of factors affecting the increase, including more thorough medical assessments and a greater awareness in the average population of individual learning disabilities. He too has seen the increase affected by those interested in the additional funding provided in special education programs.
"There is some influence of entitlement, feelings of entitlement, like if special ed has the money and if my kid is classified - it could be a mild disability-- but if he was classified as disabled, then he could tap in to some of those services," Thielen said.
As the percentage of special education students, and consequently the increase in funding for those students, continues to rise, New Hampshire's lawmakers understand the burden the law, also called IDEA, has placed on local school districts in their state.
"There is no greater priority for New Hampshire's schools than to fully fund the federal share of IDEA, and I will continue the fight to ensure Congress fulfills the commitment it made nearly 30 years ago," Sununu said in a press release. "When full federal funding of IDEA is achieved, local communities will once again be in the position to utilize critical local resources on important initiatives such as structural improvements to schools, technology upgrades, or to hire new teachers, rather than paying for the federal government's share of special education costs."
While there has been significant improvement, it is currently projected that the federal funding for special education for next year will not be more than 18.6 percent, not even half of what was promised in 1975.
"I know there are a lot of needs right now and Congress is really being pulled in many different directions as far as even helping pay for the victims of the hurricanes, but at the same time we're not talking about legislation that was passed just a couple of years ago," the Council for Exceptional Children's Hopkins said . "We've been going on for 30 years like this."
House Passes Bill Protecting Firearms Businesses from Lawsuits
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The House voted on Thursday to forbid lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors and sellers of firearms for any harm that comes from illegal use of their products.
The measure, which the Senate approved in July, cleared the House, 283-144. It now goes to the White House for President Bush's signature.
The bill, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, would protect manufacturers, distributors, importers and dealers of firearms and ammunition from lawsuits based on the way guns were used by the end consumer. It also would protect firearms and ammunition trade associations from the same kinds of suits.
The legislation allows lawsuits against firearms companies or dealers if any of certain criteria are met: transfer of a gun in violation of state or federal law in which there was a conviction for the violation; a seller's negligence; a manufacturer or sellers knowing violation of state or federal laws in the sale and marketing of the product; a breach of contract or warranty; injury due to a design or manufacturing defect, or if the action was brought by the U.S. Attorney General.
In floor debate, supporters said that these exceptions would allow all legitimate lawsuits to go forward.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said the bill "by prohibiting abusive lawsuits against the firearms industry, supports core federalism principles." He also noted that the firearms industry supplies the U.S. military and provides jobs to citizens.
Other supporters also expressed concern that lawsuits against firearms companies for crimes committed by third parties represent attempts to sue the industry out of existence.
Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.) said the bill was "a commonsense measure to protect small businesses and preserve the second amendment."
One of the leaders of the opposition to the bill, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), said that since the majority of gun shops are law-abiding, this bill would serve only to protect those few who are not.
"Why don't we go about the business of passing legislation to protect the victims of gun violence rather than a handful of bad-apple dealers?" he said.
Many of the members who rose to oppose the bill said that the courts were already doing the job of dismissing frivolous lawsuits.
According to the Associated Press, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed under the measure.
####
LIHEAP Funding Warms Up As Winter Approaches
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -Ruth Mattheson, 84, remembers how difficult the Depression was.
The Lawrence resident recalls when $1 bought a bag full of groceries and when families watched every penny they spent. She remembers when homes were heated by wood and coal stoves, and keeping warm was a great concern.
"There were no storm windows and we had to dress in several layers to keep warm," she said.
Years have come and gone since the Depression and while technology has advanced the standard of living, there are still people who are worried about keeping warm this winter, as Mattheson did so many years ago. They will have to depend on energy assistance programs, such as the federally funded Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to pay their heating bills.
No one disputes that the assistance program is crucial, but the question that remains is whether there will be enough funding to go around, especially as the energy supply is squeezed and prices soar.
Mattheson, who lives at the Berkeley Retirement Home in Lawrence, does not have any anxieties this year about heating but said if she were still living in her house she would be worried.
In fact, the elderly community and low-income families are at high-risk during the cold months. A nationwide survey of 1,100 energy assistance recipients found that 32 percent either did not fill prescriptions or did not take full doses of medication due to escalating energy bills. The study, conducted by the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, an educational and policy organization for state and local directors of the program, also found that 16 percent of those surveyed said they became ill as the result of a cold home.
The federal assistance program allocates a block grant to every state, and the funds are then administered locally. In Massachusetts, the Department of Housing and Community Development oversees the state program, and local agencies process requests for assistance.
The program, which runs from November through April, offers financial assistance for home heating to renters or homeowners whose annual household income is less than twice the federal poverty income level, which is determined by the number of family members. A household of four has to earn less than $38,700 to be eligible for assistance.
Facing the Cold
The phone has been ringing off the hook at the Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc., the Merrimack Valley's local agency in charge of distributing the heating funds.
When callers can't get through to the council by phone, program director Judy Brady said, they have been coming in and the waiting room is filled with 20 to 25 people at a time.
"People are concerned and they are considering their options early," she said.
Last year, nearly 8,000 people in the area received energy assistance, Brady said, and the demand for heating assistance will increase. While it is hard to guess the exact figure, she said 3,000 recipients from last year have already recertified and she expects to hear from most of the others. In addition she said she thinks the office will process more than 2,000 new applications.
"We are grateful for (the funding) we get," Brady said. "But it's not enough and we need it up front."
Recipients' benefit levels can't be determined until the overall program funding is determined, which leaves Brady and her staffers "hanging with a lot of paperwork." And if additional funds trickle down from the federal appropriations process during the winter season, it adds up to more paperwork and to funds that some recipients can't use.
For example, Brady said, if an extra $50 is doled out to people mid-season, they would have a hard time getting an oil company out to their house for that small amount.
Brady said she thinks she will be able to serve everyone at least once with the current funding levels, but that might mean 150 gallons having to last an entire season.
State lawmakers have been working with the local agencies, Brady said, to get information to residents. An energy assistance forum, scheduled for Oct. 25 at the Lawrence Public Library, is one of several meetings around the state hosted by the Department of Telecommunications and Energy. She said the discussion about conservation, assistance and energy budgeting would be beneficial to recipients.
Washington lawmakers heat up
Since 2000, the government has annually spent an average of $1.9 billion for the energy assistance program, which dates back to 1982. Last year, the funding broke the $2 billion mark for the first time since 1985, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program.
As part of the Energy Policy Act signed by President Bush in August, up to $5.1 billion can be spent for 2006, but so far, Congress only plans to fund $2 billion.
A bipartisan group of senators tried to attach a funding increase to the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill this week, but it was procedurally blocked on Thursday and never made it the floor for a vote. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Maine's Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, led this second attempt by legislators to appropriate the remaining $3.1 billion.
In the beginning of October, Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy proposed a similar amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Even with half of the Senate's support, it was procedurally blocked by Republican leadership.
But as lawmakers try to work it out, the average family in Massachusetts still faces a winter heating oil bill that is $378 more than last winter's average cost of $1,200, according to a recent Energy Information Administration report.
Even before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita strained already tight natural gas and oil supplies, energy was a source of concern. The oil markets flirted with record highs all summer before finally surpassing the $60 a barrel mark and gas prices have been steadily rising.
Damage from hurricanes shut down seven refineries in the Gulf Coast area, reducing the nation's energy capacity by 11 percent or 1.9 million barrels a day, Kennedy said.
At an energy conference in September, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said that the energy assistance program is one that works. "It has real meaning in the lives of people who are eligible and need to take advantage of it," she said.
"We refuse to abandon families, especially seniors, who won't be able to afford to keep the heat on," Kerry said in a statement on Wednesday. "The administration's own Energy Information Administration knows this problem is real. Governors across the country see this. So why are the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress going out of their way to do nothing? What's it going to take for the White House to act?"
###
Food Responsibility Act Limits Fast Food Liability
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The House approved a bill Wednesday that would eliminate consumers' ability to bring obesity-related lawsuits against fast food and supplement companies.
The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, nicknamed "the cheeseburger bill," includes language that would stop all lawsuits pending against food companies such as McDonald's in which plaintiffs are seeking damages for the companies' contributions to their obesity. The bill also would forbid all obesity-related suits in the future.
The measure passed, 306 to 120. The Senate has yet to act on the bill.
John Tierney (D-Salem), who voted no on the bill, questioned why Congress was even considering this issue when his constituents were concerned with other issues, such as energy prices and health care.
Republicans "want Congress to take time out" to work for special interests, he said. "There is not a single piece of evidence that the courts aren't working well."
In the floor debate, opponents concentrated on the fact that the bill would supersede approximately 20 state laws that prohibit such lawsuits and 26 more that are under consideration.
Melvin L. Watt (D-North Carolina) said the bill was "an overreaction" and the "ultimate attestation to the fact that many of my colleagues have lost confidence and faith in the legal system."
Watt said that the legal system was already properly determining which lawsuits are frivolous and throwing them out.
He also expressed concern that the bill might forbid lawsuits against dietary supplement companies even if people developed a serious condition such as heart disease as a result of their use of a supplement.
But Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) echoed the opinions of many of the bill's supporters when he emphasized the importance of personal responsibility.
"It is common sense that individuals should take responsibility for their personal choices and eating habits," he said.
Goodlatte added that the bill would protect legitimate lawsuits, such as suits over defective products and food poisoning.
Many supporters also said that frivolous obesity lawsuits would threaten jobs and weaken the food service industry.
Ric Keller (R-Florida), the bill's sponsor, originally introduced the legislation last year. It passed the House but was never brought to a vote in the Senate. Keller re-introduced it on Feb. 2.
Bryan Malenius, Keller's chief of staff, said the congressman reintroduced the bill because the playing field has changed. "It's a more favorable environment for tort reform," he said.
Malenius added that the restaurant industry is the nation's largest private-sector employer and that Keller, while confident restaurants would win any obesity lawsuits, believes the bill would help ensure that they "keep investing in communities instead of paying legal fees."
How FEMA Changed
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 - In December of 1999, a homeless person overturned a candle in an abandoned warehouse in Worcester starting a devastating fire that raged for 20 hours and cost six firefighters their lives. Rep. Jim P. McGovern, D-Worcester, said the blaze exhausted not only the Worcester fire department but other area fire departments, as well.
McGovern last week recalled asking President Clinton for federal help. "'I'm going to have James Lee Witt call you in two seconds, don't move from that phone,'" McGovern recalled Clinton saying. "And he did."
He said that Mr. Witt, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, asked what Worcester needed, even if it was a box of donuts for the volunteers.
FEMA's contribution to the Worcester fire was part of what was viewed as the agency's reformation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the agency's response to disasters had prompted many lawmakers to suggest disbanding it.
FEMA could "screw up a two-car parade," then-Rep. Norman Y. Mineta said in 1989, referring to the agency's response to a major earthquake in San Francisco that year. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-South Carolina, called FEMA officials, "the sorriest bunch of bureaucratic jackasses," after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
But by the end of that decade, the agency had won over many critics. Now, in the wake of a heavily-criticized response to Hurricane Katrina, the agency is under fire once more.
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks FEMA was made part of the new Department of Homeland Security, a move that has come under close scrutiny. But Mary Margaret Walker, a spokeswoman for FEMA, argued that local and state officials in Florida would say that FEMA was better able to work with them during last year's hurricane season than during Andrew, adding that that proves having FEMA be part of Homeland Security is not a hindrance.
Richard Krimm, who served as FEMA's associate director of response and recovery until 1998, said that changes were made at FEMA during the Clinton administration that helped turn the agency around. Clinton thought FEMA was important from the beginning of his administration, Krimm said, and appointed Mr. Witt, whom Krimm called the best emergency manager in the history of FEMA.
Mr. Witt had served as the head of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services prior to his appointment, and is the only FEMA director to date to bring emergency management experience to the job. Clinton made Witt an ex officio member of the cabinet, and "people knew he had the backing of the president," Mr. Krimm said.
As a result, other departments cooperated with FEMA. Mr. Krimm was with Mr. Witt during the Mississippi River flood of 1993, when Mr. Witt called the secretary of defense to ask for planes, and they came.
Mr. Witt was also the first FEMA director to explicitly state the agency's mission which was to coordinate the federal government's response to all hazards and to "reduce the risk to life and property," noted Jerry Ellig of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia.
Departments were established under Mr. Witt to oversee preparedness, response, recovery and evacuation after a disaster, said Mr. Ellig, who recently wrote a study on FEMA. Lower-level inspectors were given the authority to assess damage and process claims, eliminating reviews, he said, but increasing accuracy. In all, four layers of management were eliminated under Mr. Witt.
But FEMA's response to Katrina "could have been the early '90's again,"Mr. Ellig said. He said he does not know what changed, but that several possibilities presented themselves.
Maybe, as the administration claims, the disaster was so big that any FEMA would have been overwhelmed by it, he said. Or perhaps Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's first appointee to head FEMA, who had famously called the agency an "oversized entitlement program," had undone some of Mr. Witt's innovations.
When FEMA became part of the Homeland Security Department in 2002, Mr. Ellig said, it was "one of the world's largest mergers" and layers of management were added above FEMA. Maybe the extra bureaucracy made the agency less flexible.
Mr. Ellig and Mr. Krimm both point to an exodus of career FEMA workers during the Bush administration. Mr. Krimm said his former colleagues found Allbaugh "harsh," and took early retirement or otherwise left the agency. Disaster reservists available to be deployed to disaster regions have been reduced by more than half since President Bush took office, said Mr. Krimm, and some funding has been reapplied to terrorism prevention.
Leo Bosner, a 33-year veteran of FEMA, said the response division had been reduced from 60 employees to 40 over the past few years, with staff leaving and not being replaced, or being replaced with a "friend of a friend," with no emergency management background. New staff is hired to work in Homeland Security, not disaster relief, said Mr. Bosner president of the FEMA Local of the American Federation of Government Employees.
Being part of the Homeland Security Department does not add much to the disaster relief department, other than "another layer of people who don't know about emergency preparedness," Mr. Bosner said.
In the 1990s his colleagues and he were proud to work in FEMA, he said, which was that rare thing: a "popular" government agency. Now he characterizes them as "demoralized and disgusted."
"If I were a conspiracy theorist I'd think this was all part of a horrible plot," said Mr. Bosner. "But I don't. I just think it's incompetence."
U.S. Companies Still Need Innovation Despite Regulation
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - The real challenge to the United States isn't terrorism but maintaining a competitive position in the growing global market, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), chairman of the Senate banking subcommittee on securities and investment, said Wednesday.
The senator spoke as a part of a panel hosted by U.S. News & World Report magazine on whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has restored investor confidence since it was enacted in 2002.
Hailed as the most significant change to the country's securities law since the New Deal in the 1930s, Sarbanes-Oxley was designed to protect investors by improving the reliability and accuracy of corporate disclosures. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was created as a result of the act.
Hagel said regulations like the Sarbanes-Oxley, while not intending to foster a risk-free corporate culture, could restrict innovation and growth.
The panelists-William J. McDonough, chairman of the Accounting Oversight Board; John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable; Alyssa Machold Ellsworth, managing director of the Council of Institutional Investors; and Hagel-agreed that the act has made strides in improving transparency in financial disclosure, a needed measure after the Enron, WorldCom and Tyco scandals.
As a result, however, some companies are already risk averse, McDonough said. The question to think about, he said, is "How do we keep the virtue of Sarbanes-Oxley and have business leaders keep taking risks?"
As with any new routine, said Ellsworth, company executives are adjusting to their new roles, and striking a balance will come with time.
"This is the most vibrant market in the world," she said.
Sarbanes-Oxley has been very effective for larger companies that have developed compliance oversight boards and have had long-standing relationships with auditors, McDonough said. But for others, compliance regulations haven't been cost-effective, he said.
The panelists recommended that Congress should consider legislation to make the act more manageable for small-to-mid size companies that don't have ample resources to comply with the paperwork and labor-intensive requirements.
Clear disclosure of chief executives' compensation, was another hot button, especially for investors. Though the law requires disclosure of compensation, critics say companies are sometimes vague on the details.
"Shareholders see red on this issue," Ellsworth said.
Agreeing with other panelists, Castellani said compensation shouldn't be legislated but industry guidelines should be drawn up so investors can understand how CEOs are paid.
He said that salaries should be linked to long-term performance, determined by independent company committees and that executives shouldn't be rewarded for underperformance.
Changes to the legislation won't come any time soon though, Hagel said, adding that it falls low on a list of congressional priorities that include Hurricane Katrina relief.
"It is important to let [the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board] play this out," he said. "We have to be careful that Congress doesn't regulate the regulators."
###
