Category: Washington, DC
Genetic Nondiscrimination Bill Passes Senate
By Liz Goldberg
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 – The Senate Thursday unanimously passed a bill that would ban discrimination by employers and insurance companies against people who are genetically predisposed to certain illnesses. The vote was 98-0. It is the second time in as many sessions that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), has been passed unanimously.
“It is of critical importance that people do not feel afraid to use available technologies that could save their lives just because they are worried about losing their health insurance and their jobs,” Snowe said in a statement.
Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) introduced a genetic nondiscrimination bill in the House in 2003 and se plans to introduce a “very similar” bill soon, said Eric Burns, Slaughter’s communications director.
Although the earlier House bill never moved out of committee, it had bipartisan support, with 242 co-sponsors, and was supported by the White House, Burns said. Those who opposed the bill did so because of the concerns of business and insurance groups, he said.
The Republican leadership is “more beholden to the special-interest groups than to the American people in passing this legislation,” Burns said, adding that the American people are “clamoring” for the legislation now that genetic testing has become more widespread.
The House Education and the Workforce Committee, which held hearings on the bill last year, had concerns that the legislation could be redundant or could create additional problems, said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for the committee.
“We had several witnesses testify last year about the steps the federal government, as well as the states, have already taken to address the issue of genetic nondiscrimination in the workplace,” Smith said. “Before Congress enacts additional mandates, it’s important and appropriate to discuss whether any legislative proposal would have unintended consequences on both employers and workers.”
Smith said the committee will continue to monitor the issue.
Slaughter is optimistic that the House will pass the bill this time, Burns said.
“I think it’s going to be hard for the Republican leadership to just stonewall [the bill], particularly when the only objections seem to be coming from special-interest groups,” he said.
Snowe, in a statement, called on the House “to join us in making the protections in this act a reality and prevent such discrimination from blocking Americans’ access to the promise of modern medicine.”
Reps. Thomas H. Allen (D-Maine) and Michael H. Michaud (D-Maine) both co-sponsored Slaughter’s bill in 2003 and plan to co-sponsor it again, barring any major changes to the language of the bill, their press secretaries said.
###
Problems Abound With Drug Reimportation
By Liz Goldberg
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - The cost of prescription drugs in the United States is too high, but problems, including safety regulation and patent laws, must be ironed out before drugs can be reimported from other countries, said members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and officials who testified at a hearing Wednesday.
The hearing was the first of several the committee will hold to investigate the feasibility of reimporting U.S.-made drugs from other countries. The discussion is coming after a task force researched and identified several challenges facing reimportation.
Many senior citizens and other prescription drug users organize bus trips to Canada to pick up drugs or order them from Canadian online pharmacies. The drugs are available at a fraction of their price in the United States, but many of the pharmacies are reportedly rogue organizations.
"Our seniors are under incredible pressure, and I think this really cries out for action," Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the committee's senior Democrat, said of the costs of prescription drugs, adding that lower costs must not reduce safety.
Kennedy noted that the United States invests the most money in developing prescription drugs and also charges the most for the drugs, calling drug costs in other countries "vastly more reasonable" than those in the United States.
Surgeon General Richard Carmona, who led the task force, said the economists and scientists the task force interviewed said the loss of revenue because of drug reimportation programs could deter such research and development in the United States.
Kennedy and several other senators, including Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), are co-sponsoring a bill introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D) last week to allow reimportation of drugs already approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who is also a member of the committee but did not attend Wednesday's hearing, introduced similar legislation on Jan. 26. Collins also co-sponsored his bill. Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) introduced a companion bill in the House on Feb. 10.
Although the task force found that Canadian drug regulations are equal to those of the United States, many of the online pharmacies that consumers purchase from are shams, they concluded. The pills they sell could be too strong or too week or have been improperly stored or transported, affecting their "pedigree," Carmona said.
"The bottom line is that the public can get something that we have no idea if it's safe or effective," he said.
Part of the problem with ensuring the safety of reimported drugs is that there are thousands of points of entry around the country through which packages travel each day, Carmona said. The task force recommends a "well-defined, closed system," with the FDA having authority to monitor all of the packages that come into the country, no matter the original source, he said
Because counterfeiters can duplicate drug labels, seals, watermarks and the shape of pills, the United States needs to develop an electronic system to track and trace packages containing prescription drugs, Carmona said. Such a system would be costly because it would need to stay a step ahead of counterfeiters and would work only if the country exporting the drugs was willing to participate, which few countries are because of the cost, Carmona said.
Loopholes in the way drugs move within the United States also must be closed before drugs are imported from other countries, said John Gray, president and CEO of the Healthcare Distribution Management Association.
Dr. Peter Rost, a vice president of Pfizer Inc., said those loopholes include the thousands of secondary wholesalers of drugs in the United States, which are licensed by states rather than the FDA. Pills also are shipped in large quantities and then repackaged, unlike in Europe, where pills are shipped in individual bottles and are not touched after leaving the manufacturer, said Rost, who told the committee he was speaking as an individual, not as a Pfizer representative.
Two cities in Massachusetts, Boston and Springfield, have relationships with Canadian distributors to import drugs. The state of Minnesota has contractual agreements with reputable Canadian pharmacies and is able to import drugs at lower cost, an arrangement Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty advocates expanding to the entire country.
"We're asking the government, ideally the FDA . to step in and identify the credible operators" and help the American people get affordable drugs, Pawlenty said, while acknowledging another problem: Canadian companies are already becoming strained by the demand to export drugs to the United States.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) expressed additional concerns with Pawlenty's plan.
"We have a much bigger animal to deal with than what Minnesota has," he said, referring to the country as a whole.
Burr said reimporting drugs would be a violation of intellectual property laws because the patent owner would have to give approval for the reimportation. Pawlenty said Minnesota imports drugs under a legal provision that allows what might otherwise be a violation of drug companies' patent rights , but the governor acknowledged that the law would need to be altered if drug importation went nationwide.
Mailing the drugs is also a concern, considering that anthrax and ricin can be mailed, said Burr, chairman of the panel's Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness Subcommittee.
###
Budget Proposes Cuts to Rail Service
By Emily Beaver
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -Eliminating all federal funding for Amtrak in the proposed 2006 budget, the Bush administration is determined to drive the passenger rail system into bankruptcy, Democrats and public transportation officials said Tuesday.
"This administration plays a game of chicken with the congress every year," Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., said at a press conference. "They're about to run Amtrak of f the cliff past the point of no return into bankruptcy."
The Bush administration's budget proposal would provide no federal subsidies for Amtrak, bankrupting the rail service, unless the Federal Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act is passed.
The reform act, introduced by the administration in 2003, splits the Northeast Corridor of Amtrak rail service from long-distance Amtrak operations. States would contract private companies for train operation.
Edward Wytkind, president of the Transportation Trades Department AFL-CIO, said Amtrak is already under funded and states do not have the money to finance the system.
"They starve Amtrak, and try to kill it with a risky privatization scheme," Wytkind said.
The proposed budget says Amtrak service is inefficient, with only a 70.7 percent rate of "on-time performance" and drains taxpayer dollars.
"On its current course, Amtrak's performance will decline and its infrastructure will deteriorate even with well over $1 billion in annual Federal appropriations," the budget reads.
Proponents of the rail system say ridership levels are at an all-time high and that Amtrak employs over 20,000 workers. According to figures released by Amtrak, the rail system employs 636 workers in Connecticut in 2004 and had 1.3 million riders.
Under the budget proposal, freight and commuter operations in the Northeast Corridor could receive $360 million in funding from the Surface Transportation Board (STB), but only after Amtrak is forced into bankruptcy, Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn said in a statement issued Monday.
James Oberstar, a democrat from Michigan on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the administration was using the budget to force congress to eliminate Amtrak. Shutting down Amtrak would cause widespread disruption, he said.
"Bankruptcy is not the solution," he said. "STB has no experience managing passenger rail or freight rail."
Any change to the budget would not affect service for the next year, but "there's going to be very little cash left at the end of the year," Gunn said.
The administration has no proposal of how Amtrak would continue to operate after bankruptcy, he said.
"In a word, they have no plan for Amtrak other than bankruptcy," Gunn said.
"The answer from this administration seems to be 'You're on your own,'" Wytkind said.
Policymakers react to State of the Union
By Emily Beaver
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 -As President Bush called on Congress to save the Social Security program in his State of the Union Address Wednesday, one Connecticut lawmaker hoped the president's cries for reform wouldn't "drown out" other issues.
"I do hope that the Social Security debate will not drown out other pressing domestic issues," Rep. Chris Shays said in a statement Wednesday.
"We still need to preserve and protect our Medicare system from financial ruin. We have a severe energy crisis that must be addressed by reducing our dependence on foreign oil," Shays's statement said.
Although Bush did not address Medicare in his address, he urged Congress to pass his Clear Skies legislation to make America less dependent on foreign energy.
However, preserving the Social Security program for future generations is an important issue, Shays said.
"The President is correct: we need to preserve and protect Social Security benefits," his statement said.
Social Security will soon be "paying out more than it takes in" and will be bankrupt by 2042 if the system is not overhauled, Bush said in his address.
"I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem like a long way off," Bush said in his address. "If you've got children in their 20s .the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter."
Bush outlined a plan to overhaul Social Security by allowing younger workers to invest their payroll taxes in private accounts. Americans older than 55 will retain their current Social Security benefits under the new plan, he said.
" Establishing personal Social Security savings accounts is a viable and responsible solution," Shays's statement said.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman said in statement that some changes may be necessary to sustain Social Security, a program that has been "a terrific success."
"But we must not change our core commitment to provide a safety net for our seniors," his statement said.
Democrats Want to Extend Death Benefits
By Emily Beaver
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1-A plan to increase death payments for U.S. troops killed in combat should include all soldiers who die on active duty, not just those who die in "combat zones" designated by the Pentagon, Democrats argued Tuesday.
The Pentagon announced a plan Tuesday that would increase the payment to families of military personnel killed in combat, also known as "the death gratuity."
Survivors of troops killed in combat currently receive a $12,420 death gratuity payment, and can receive up to $250,000 in life insurance payments. Department of Defense and Senate plans would increase the gratuity payment to $100,000 and life insurance payments to $400,000.
However, some Democrats, like Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, pointed out "a number of problems with the Pentagon plan" at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday.
The proposal is problematic because it would only cover military personnel killed in "hostile combat zones" determined by the Pentagon, Nelson said.
Sen. Carl Levine of Illinois, a ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said all troops killed in active duty should receive the benefits.
"We have to be careful about making a distinction about the type of service," Levine said.
Defense officials questioned by members of the Armed Services Committee said they opposed making a distinction between hostile and non-hostile combat zones when providing benefits. However, budgeting money for death depends on the amount of hostility troops encounter in the future, said David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense.
According to figures released by the Pentagon yesterday, 1,415 service members were killed in Iraq. Of those deaths, 1,089 were a result of hostile actions.
"There is nothing we can do in a financial sense to replace a lost service member," he said. "Retroactivity is diplomatic."
The death gratuity was $3,000 during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and was raised $12,000 in 2003. Several members of the Armed Services committee said the death gratuity payment was disproportionate to the payments awarded to the families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which averaged $2.1 million.
"There was an imbalance there that was not acceptable," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut democrat.
Chu said the government already provides a number of services for the families of troops killed in combat, including a pension plan that provides "dollar for dollar what the military member was earning on active service."
"The country wants to express thanks for the service and condolence for the loss," he said.
From Norwalk to Washington: Celebrating the Inauguration
By Emily Beaver
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -After planting hundreds of Bush/Cheney signs on front lawns, organizing rallies and fundraisers, and knocking on doors to campaign for President Bush, three Norwalk Republicans spent a few days in the capital celebrating the inauguration of the president.
"For me, this just completed the cycle of convention, election and inauguration," Art Scialabba said Thursday, standing in front of the ballroom at the Washington Hilton.
Scialabba, who is the chairman of the Norwalk Republican Town Committee, traveled to Washington Tuesday along with vice-chairman Kelly Straniti to attend a number of inaugural events.
Dick Moccia also came to Washington to celebrate the inauguration with Scialabba and Straniti.
Scialabba and Straniti spent months campaigning for Bush. Straniti coordinated a campaign to put lawn signs up in Norwalk and worked on a women's coalition that encouraged female voters to vote for Bush. Scialabba organized a Veterans for Bush fundraiser. Both attended the Republican convention in New York last July.
"We rallied our troops as much as possible to get the vote out for our president," Scialabba said. "It just shows that the hard work that we did paid off."
Moccia has been an active member of the Republican Party for more than 25 years and was selected by the Presidential Inaugural Committee to greet the president when he arrived at the Constitution Ball, one of nine official balls held Thursday evening.
"To meet the president-it's really quite a thrill," Moccia said.
The group watched from the crowd as Bush was sworn into office at the Capitol at noon. Later, they tried to watch the parade move down Pennsylvania Avenue but got stuck in long security lines.
Straniti said the presence of security seemed less noticeable in Washington than at the Republican Convention in New York, where security guards stood outside hotels with guns. However, she said she welcomed the security measures surrounding the inauguration.
"I'd rather spend a few more moments in line somewhere to make sure that we're safe," she said.
Although she enjoyed the inaugural ceremony at the Capitol and sightseeing in Washington, Straniti said she had looked forward to the Constitution Ball the most.
"Its just amazing-it's an honor just to be here," she said Thursday, wearing a silver ball gown and watching as women in sequins and men in tuxedos streamed in and out of the ballroom at the Hilton.
"This is definitely the main event," Scialabba said. "It was definitely worth the effort to get down here."
"I'm going to tell my friends this was unique," Moccia said. "I think this inauguration speaks of the close election.but red or blue, everyone came together on one day and honored our president."
Inauguration Draws Both Democrats and Republicans
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 -Thousands of people keeping warm with fur coats and dressed in cowboy hats and boots stomped through the snow to attend the 55th presidential inauguration Thursday. The swearing-in of George W. Bush for a second term also drew both Republicans and Democrats from his former opponent's home state.
About 15 minutes before Mr. Bush walked onto the Capitol steps to take the oath, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry played with a cowboy hat and joked around with fellow senators. The Massachusetts senator's appearance at the swearing-in ceremony impressed Rebecca Rosen of Salem, Mass.
"I think he was a real gentleman for [attending]," the 53-year-old said while shivering in the cold.
Mrs. Rosen said she and her husband, Alvin, came to Washington because they are "staunch supporters" of Bush.
"We still have friends but different political views," Mr. Rosen, 53, said with a smile about being a Republican in Massachusetts.
Judy Milan, 46, and Lynn McNeil, 56, said they decided to put their political differences with the president aside and travel down from Lynn, Mass., for the inauguration.
"The only reason we came is because she had extra tickets and she needed a driver," Ms. McNeil, a self-proclaimed Democrat, said. "I'm the designated driver."
Ms. Milan and Ms. McNeil both said their first inauguration was worth the trip despite comments from Republicans but added that they did not agree with the money spent on the event.
"What Franklin Roosevelt did in World War II should have been done here because we are at war," Ms. McNeil said.
Mr. Rosen said the complaints about the cost of the inauguration upset him because he did not believe it was unusual.
"The reality is if John Kerry was elected you'd see the same type of celebrational balls," he said. "I think it's really a non-issue."
During the two-hour parade cheers rang out from the crowd as men and women of the armed forces marched by in uniform.
People lined office windows and rooftops along Pennsylvania Avenue to see the parade as protestors below chanted "not a mandate" while waving signs.
Those watching from bleachers near where the protestors were fenced in at Freedom Plaza taunted them, yelling "four more years" and attempting to drown out the booing with cheers.
Police in riot gear stood near the protest area and Mr. Bush's motorcade sped up while passing by.
Sharpshooters on rooftops and hundreds of Secret Service agents with ear warmers covering their ear pieces made the heightened-security presence known throughout the day, according to Rachael Hasson.
Ms. Hasson, of Northboro, Mass., said she noticed the security level was much higher at this inauguration than four years ago but said the extra lines were worth the experience.
The 24-year-old said she did not believe the estimated $40 million being spent was unnecessary, despite its being for Bush's second term.
"I think we're celebrating what our nation stands for no matter who is in office and what else is going on," Hasson said.
###
High Salaries for Congressional Staff
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 - Until the late 1800s, members of Congress had to do all of their own work, from writing legislation to responding to constituents, without help from any staff members.
The Senate first authorized its members to hire clerks with public funds in 1884, and the House followed suit in 1893. This allowed each member to have one staffer. Until then, the committee chairmen were allowed staff members, but only the more wealthy congressmen hired personal staff, with their own money. With the new rules, the publicly-funded staffers were paid $6 per day for the length of the session.
Oh, how times have changed.
In fiscal year 2004, each of New Hampshire and Maine's senators spent approximately $2 million in public funds to pay their staffs in Washington and in state offices. In the House, the New Hampshire and Maine representatives each spent about three-quarters of a million dollars on staff expenses, according to an analysis conducted for Foster's Daily Democrat using records filed with the House and Senate. All of the figures in this story are based on fiscal year 2004, which ran from Oct. 1, 2003, to Sept. 30, 2004.
With an annual salary of $152,388.06, in fiscal year 2004, Steven Abbott, Sen. Susan Collins' chief of staff, was the highest paid of any staff member working for New Hampshire and Maine's members of Congress.
Each member of Congress is given a budget from which to pay for staff and office expenses but it is up to each member to decide how that money will be spent.
"Salaries in congressional offices are set in basically the same way as normal offices only at a lower amount," said Brad Fitch, deputy director of the Congressional Management Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan organization.
When hiring and setting salaries, the applicants' education and experience are considered as well as what they will bring to the office and their performance is evaluated when they are considered for raises, Fitch said.
The Senate
With a payroll of $2,018,825.19, Sen. Judd Gregg spent more on staff salaries than any member of Congress from New Hampshire and Maine, according to public records filed with the secretary of the Senate.
Gregg was followed closely by his Granite State colleague, Sen. John Sununu, who spent a total of $1,927,450.02 on his payroll.
The Maine senators' payrolls were slightly less. Sen. Olympia Snowe spent $1,915,701.14 on her payroll, while her colleague Collins spent $1,879,850.49.
Collins' payroll listed 99 staff members over the entire fiscal year, while Sununu's only listed 43. Both Gregg and Snowe had staffs numbering somewhere in between.
Senators are permitted to hire as many employees as they want, as long as they do not go over their office budget, which is determined by state demographics and distance from Washington. Any money left over that the senators do not spend goes back to the federal treasury.
In the past six years Gregg has given back a total of $1.6 million, according to his communications director Erin Rath. Collins has returned more than $1 million since she was elected in 1996, and gives money back every year, press secretary Jen Burita said. Sununu has given back $400,000 since he arrived in the Senate in 2002, his communications director, Barbara Riley, said.
Senators salaries and pay raises are set by vote of the Senate. During 2004 all senators earned $157,250.02.
Some top aides were not far behind the senators themselves on the pay-scale- even some who lived in New Hampshire and Maine, where the cost of living is much lower than it is in Washington, D.C. All four of the New Hampshire and Maine senators' chiefs of staff earned six-figure salaries,
The chief of staff is typically the highest ranking staff member in a congressional office and oversees all office matters involving employment, the budget, procedure and policy in addition to advising the senator on policy matters.
Steven Abbott, Sen. Collins' chief of staff, was the highest paid of the four Senators' chiefs of staff. Based in Washington, Abbottt made $152,388.06, in fiscal year 2004, including any bonuses he received.
Sen. Olympia Snowe's current chief of staff John Richter, brought in $120,999.84 in fiscal year 2004. Antonia Ferrier, Snowe's press secretary, would not comment on or confirm any of the staff salaries, which she said she did not know. "I would have to go look up people's salaries," she said, adding that that, "would be kind of weird."
Freshman Sen. John Sununu's Chief of Staff, Paul Collins, made $149,480.67 in fiscal year 2004. Collins, who is based in Portsmouth but often travels to Washington, has worked for Sununu since 1996 when he was first elected to Congress, according to Riley.
However, Collins' counterpart in Sen. Judd Gregg's office, chief of staff Joel Maiola, made almost $17,000 less in the same period, pulling in $132,864.86. Gregg communications director Rath noted in an email that Maiola's annual salary is $145,000 but that he took time off in 2004 to do campaign work.
Maiola works out of both the Concord and Washington offices and has worked for Gregg since 1980 when Gregg was elected to the House, Rath said. Maiola was the only chief of staff out of the four New Hampshire and Maine offices who was not the highest paid staff member. In fact, he was the third highest paid.
Gregg's administrative assistant, Vasiliki Christopoulos, made $145,925.70, though his annual salary, Rath said, was $142,000. This difference could have come from any bonuses she received. Christopoulos, who is based in Washington, joined Gregg's staff after the 1992 campaign.
Gregg's policy director and general counsel, John Mashburn, was the second highest-paid staff member in the senator's office at $138,913.21. This was slightly more than his salary of $135,000, which - like Christopoulos - could be due to bonuses he received.
In the other three offices, the legislative directors were the second highest paid employees.
Sununu's legislative director, Gregg Willhauck, made $99,690.34. Snowe's legislative director, Carolyn Holmes, made $95,499.84, while Collins' legislative director, James Dohoney, made $88,749.96.
Legislative assistants or communications directors were the third highest paid employees in Sununu, Snowe and Collins' offices.
Michael O'Reilly, senior legislative assistant for Sununu, for example, made $95,470.66. O'Reilly joined the office in 2003 and is based in Washington.
Snowe's legislative assistant, Samuel Horton, based in Washington, made $90,499.92.
Collins' communications director, Jennifer Burita, made $83,749.86, making her the third highest paid staffer in Collins' office.
These salaries are all above average for the Senate staffers, but generally Senate staff salaries are lower than the rest of the federal government.
There was a 32 percent pay disparity between Senate staff and federal staff, according to a Congressional Management Foundation report looking at 1991-2001, the most recent data available. The average Washington-based Senate salary was $49,236, and the average Washington-based federal employee salary was $64,969, according to the foundation.
Worse off were female Senate staffers, who only made 87 cents for every dollar earned by male staffers, according to the report. The average female salary was $45,845, while the average male salary was $52,876.
Senate staffers made out well compared with the U.S. labor force in general, however. According to the foundation study, Senate staffers made slightly more than the national average in 2001. The average Senate staff salary was $45,847, and the average U.S. labor force salary was $45,430.
The House
Rep. Thomas Allen of Maine's First District had the highest payroll of the New Hampshire and Maine House delegations in fiscal year 2004 at $941,241.27.
Allen's Maine colleague, Michael H. Michaud, had a slightly lower payroll at $835,400.46, while each of the New Hampshire representative's payrolls was less.
Rep. Charlie Bass' payroll was $734,909.67 for fiscal year 2004, while Rep. Jeb Bradley's was $714,806.48.
House offices, unlike in the Senate, are limited to 18 full-time employees and four part-time employees at any given point in the year. The amount members can spend on their offices is determined by a formula that considers the district's population and its distance from Washington.
Over the course of fiscal year 2004 Allen employed 30 different staffers, which was the most of the four legislators, and Bradley had the least at 22.
If the representatives do not use their entire budget, the money is returned to the House reserves.
Bass "usually doesn't use his entire budget and gives back to the reserves," press secretary Margo Shideler said.
Bradley press secretary Stephanie DuBois said he gave back $100,953 in 2003 and is projected to give back $250,000 in 2004.
Michaud's press secretary confirmed the congressman has given back money from the total expense allowance granted for his office expenditures.
The representatives themselves each received a base salary of $158,100 in 2004, according to Fitch; but as in the Senate this money does not come out of the representatives' office payrolls.
Also like the Senate, the House members' top aides were not far behind their bosses in pay, though the average salary for House staffers is still lower than the rest of the federal government.
Just like their Senate counterparts, the chiefs of staff in the New Hampshire and Maine House offices were the highest paid staffers in those states' delegations in fiscal year 2004.
Bass' chief of staff, Darwin Cusack, who is based in Concord, brought in the most overall with $128,305.59. However, Shideler said Cusack's salary was $125,000. This difference could be due to any bonuses Cusack received.
Allen's chief of staff, Jacqueline Potter, made $120,900.01 in the fiscal year. Potter is based in Portland, but travels frequently to Washington.
Bradley's chief of staff, Debra Vanderbeek, is based in Washington but still made less than her counterpart in Bass' office, at $118,035.50 in fiscal year 2004.
Of the four New Hampshire and Maine congressmen, Michaud, a freshman at the time, paid his chief of staff, Peter Chandler, the least. Chandler, who is based in Washington, made $86,608.27. However, press secretary Monica Castellanos said this was due to time he took off from the office, and his salary is actually $92,000.
Allen's and Bradley's legislative directors brought in the second highest salaries in their respective offices, while Bass' projects director and Michaud's scheduler and executive assistant had the second highest salary in those offices.
Todd Stein, the legislative director in Allen's office, is based in Washington and made $89,277.76. His counterpart in Bradley's office, Michael Liles is based in Washington and made $69,844.43.
Bass' projects director, Neil Levesque, who is based in New Hampshire, made $78,083.34. According to Shideler his salary was $75,000, and this difference could be due to bonuses.
Diane Smith, Michaud's scheduler and executive assistant, is based in Lewiston and made $65,821.77, though Castellanos said his base salary was $60,000.
The third highest-paid positions varied by office.
Allen's communications director, Mark Sullivan, made $73,872.24 and is based in Portland, though he frequently travels to Washington.
Michaud's legislative director and deputy chief of staff, Matthew Robinson, is based in Washington and made $60,397.45 though his base salary was $57,800.
Bradley's Washington-based projects director, Frank Guinta, made $56,694.40.
Bass' Washington-based legislative director, Tad Furtado, made $73,611.08, but his salary was $75,000 .These differences could be due to any time the employees took off or any bonuses they received.
The New Hampshire and Maine staff salaries are on par with the rest of the House, according to the results of a not-yet-released Congressional Management Foundation study. According to the report, the average salary for a House chief of staff is $118,098.
House legislative directors generally made $70,602, while press secretaries or communications directors made $53,791, and top legislative assistants made, on average, $49,495.
Like the Senate, there is a disparity between what women and men earn: On average in 2004, according to the study, women on the House side earned 84 cents for every dollar men earned.
These statistics only account for what a staff member is paid from the congressman's "clerk-hire" budget, and do not include salary from any committee staffs they may be on. Frequently staff members will work on committee staff as well as on the member's staff, which means they may draw earnings from both.
"The NFL of Government"
The profile of the average congressional staff member is young, well-educated and single, according to the Congressional Management Foundation. The summary of the foundation's House Study said, "This profile is in sharp contrast to the profile of the average worker nationwide."
However, Fitch summed it up in layman's terms. "There are no weak performers in congressional offices," he said.
The staff members are "very bright, very intelligent," Fitch said, and Capitol Hill is essentially "like the NFL of government."
Proposed New College Student Database Raises Privacy Concerns
By Huijuan Jia
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -Federal officials are considering creating a national database containing detailed information about students including financial data, a move advocates say would facilitate tracking performance of colleges but critics argue would constitute an invasion of the students' privacy.
The National Center for Education Statistics, a division of the Department of Education responsible for gathering and processing data, is studying the feasibility of a proposed redesign of its Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, which currently requires that colleges report student data in summary form. The proposal calls for creating a new "unit record" system in which schools would provide the information on a student-by-student basis instead of in a broad summary.
The current system collects survey data from all post-secondary schools that receive federal financial assistance. Student data currently collected by the Web-based system include enrollments, completions, graduation rates, tuition and student financial aid. Much of this data is aggregated by several student characteristics.
Under the proposed change, the department would use Social Security numbers to match each student's data in different portions of the database. In addition to the information currently collected, the new system would include data on tuition and fees paid, loans and federal, state and institutional grant awards for each student enrolled in the school.
Proponents of the proposal, including the American Council on Education, the
American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the State Higher
Education Executive Officers Association, argue that the present system is unable to provide an accurate portrayal of how well colleges educate students in a number of measures, including, for example, graduation rates.
Advocates also argue that the new system would help to more accurately measure a college's performance by providing better information on the graduation rate, and for the first time, track an institution's net price, or what students actually pay after financial aid.
Critics, however, particularly lobbyists for private colleges, have expressed concerns that such a new system would invade a student's privacy and could also expose students to identity theft.
The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, which represents private colleges, strongly opposes the proposal. Sarah Flanagan, vice president for government relations of the association, said "there is a Big Brother aspect of all of this."
"We do not believe that the price for enrolling in college should be permanent entry into a federal registry, and we fear that the existence of such a massive registry will prove irresistible to future demands for access to the data for non-educational purposes," the association stated in an issue brief on its Website, "The idea that students would enter a federal registry by enrolling in college and could be tracked for the rest of their lives is frightening. A central database containing massive amounts of data for each of the 16.5 million post-secondary students in the United States, including those who do not receive any federal financial aid, is chilling."
With identity theft on the rise and colleges moving away from the use of Social Security numbers, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities called the proposed system "a step backward for privacy rights."
Jeff von Munkwitz-Smith, university registrar at the University of Connecticut, said he supports the goal of providing better information on graduation rates, time to completion, student migration and the real cost of attendance but believes the proposal would "unnecessarily increase" the burden on institutions.
"As with most proposals, the devil is in the details," he said, "Decisions about the data elements to be collected, data element definitions and the timing of the submissions will make a huge difference in the burden on institutions. Keeping the process as clean and simple as possible would benefit all of us."
One of the purposes of the new system would be verify enrollment for loans through the National Student Loan Data System. But Munkwitz-Smith said that institutions already have the ability to provide such verifications.
"If the purpose of the change to unit record data collection is to be able to answer the questions that Congress, institutions and the public have about graduation rates, etc.," he said in an e-mail response. "Why needlessly complicate the change by attempting to solve a problem that institutions already have solved?"
Congress will start early next year to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which sets the rules for higher education-related grants and expired at the end of September. Advocates of the new system would like Congress to include a field test in approximately 1,200 to 1,500 institutions in 2006-2007, and nationwide implementation in 2007-2008, according to Dennis Carroll, associate commissioner of the postsecondary studies division at the National Center for Education Statistics.
In late October and early November, the center sponsored three conferences, called "technical review panels," to discuss converting the current data collection system. At the November 9-10 meeting, the center's commissioner, Robert Lerner, reiterated that the agency would take no action unless Congress authorizes the proposal and appropriates funds for its implementation.
Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, and other advocates of the proposal have been urging Congress to consider establishing the unit record system as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Hartle warned at the meeting that there would be dangers to the higher education community if the new system is not revised, but he doubted it could be done quickly and easily. He called the timetable "breathtakingly optimistic," citing privacy and technical issues as stumbling blocks to moving forward.
Bernard Fryshman, executive vice president of the Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools, called the database a "total invasion of privacy of individuals and a major change."
"It isn't anybody's business where I've gone or what I've done," Fryshman said. "Nobody should record these data, no matter how well protected."
Carroll assured that no one outside of the National Center for Education Statistics and its contractors would have access to the database.
"Records go in, but never go out," Carroll said.
But some education experts, including Becky Timmons, the American Council on Education's director of government relations, worried that other agencies might want access to the database once it is built.
At an earlier meeting in November, panelists expressed their concerns about using Social Security numbers as the tracking device in the data. Peggye Cohen, assistant vice president of George Washington University, said that students there are "up in arms" over the use of Social Security numbers and that the school is involved in a big project to stop using them in order to help cut down on identity theft.
Enacting the proposal also would require changing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which requires a student's or parent's permission to release most student records.
As part of the design of the unit record system, once it is authorized and appropriated, the National Center for Education Statistics said it would hold more panel meetings to discuss the issue of student privacy and rights. A report on the proposal is currently being prepared and is expected to be submitted to Congress in February.
The Department of Education has not released cost figures for implementing such a system, but higher education lobbyists estimate the project to initially require $4 million-$6 million.
###
Breast Cancer Research Funding Fails
WASHINGTON 12/9/04-In October, Congress passed legislation that lit the St. Louis Arch pink in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness month. The resolution had two sponsors in the Senate and four in the House and was signed into law on Oct.20.
The move elicited an unexpected response from some breast cancer research advocates.
"Since Oct. 20, 3,069 women have died of breast cancer," New Hampshire Breast Cancer Coalition President Nancy Ryan said last month. "Pink lights didn't save any of them."
Congress appropriated more than $4 billion last month for the National Cancer Institute's efforts to save people from various forms of the disease. But that spending did not include funding for a program breast cancer research advocates had been pushing for two years and that had strong support in the House and Senate. Congress did not pass the bill specifically authorizing and appropriating $30 million over the next five years to create eight centers that would study the link between breast cancer and the environment. The bill had 62 sponsors in the Senate and 210 in the House and has been introduced three times in six years.
Hundreds of studies have explored the links between breast cancer and the environment. Many have ruled out a connection between certain chemicals and breast cancer, but researchers, and those who work with patients, said the need for additional funding and research persists.
"A lot of patients, especially the younger women in their 30s, 40s and 50s, the first thing they say is, 'I eat well. I don't smoke. It's got to be the environment,'" said Elizabeth Hale Campoli, a registered nurse and program director at the Breast Care Center in Nashua. "It kind of gets them a little angry. They feel like they've done everything right."
The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act, which would establish and fund eight research centers under the direction of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the National Institutes of Health, has died in committee in the three consecutive sessions since Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) introduced it in 1999. In November, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic leader-designate, "hot-lined" the bill, meaning it bypassed committee and was brought to the Senate floor for a vote that required the Senate's unanimous consent. But opposition from the Republican side prevented its passage.
According to both a Chafee spokesman and breast cancer research advocates who lobbied for the bill, Sen. Judd Gregg blocked it in the committee he chaired. They said that instead, he favored allowing the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute to decide how to spend federal cancer research funds. It was a change that the bill's advocates found unacceptable.
When asked after a recent Senate vote why he opposed the legislation, Gregg said, "I'm not going to comment on that."
Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, which helped develop the legislation, said Gregg has "consistently blocked enactment.even though a bipartisan majority of the Senate supported the bill."
Both Ryan and Hale Campoli also said their requests to meet with Gregg personally on trips to Washington to discuss the bill have been declined for two years in a row.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) supported the bill and Reps. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) and Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) supported the House version.
"We were extremely disappointed that the bill did not move," said Ryan, who, with other members of the New Hampshire coalition, canvassed Capitol Hill during the November lame-duck session to garner support for the bill.
Ryan has been "living with breast cancer," as she puts it, since 1991. Her work at the New Hampshire coalition has been a full-time, unpaid job since she was diagnosed at the age of 41.
Though the numbers have decreased, New Hampshire breast cancer incidence rates are about eight percent higher than the national average and the death rate is slightly higher, according to National Cancer Institute data from 2001, the most recent year available. In that year, 931 women were diagnosed with breast cancer and 186 women died from the disease.
Previous and current studies on breast cancer and the environment have been somewhat inconclusive, researchers say, because of the difficulty of measuring the effects of environmental factors.
The largest and most expensive epidemiological study supported by the National Cancer Institute was the Long Island Breast Cancer Study, in a region where breast cancer incidence rates were higher than in other parts of the country. The study compared chemical levels in blood samples of women with breast cancer to those without the disease.
Parts of this study are still under way, but findings released in 2002 showed that there was no correlation between PCBs, including DDT, and increased instances of breast cancer.
"It sounds like a high-possibility prospect, but it hasn't panned out in direct research," said Dr. Linda Titus Ernstoff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, who reviewed the study and thousands of others on the manufactured chemical. "But it could be that we can't measure it well in the blood because it has decreased over time. We can't really take it off the suspect list."
But a chemical known as PAH that is found in grilled foods, engine exhaust and cigarette smoke, did show some effect.
"That finding was not clear-cut to interpret," said Dr. Deborah Winn of the National Cancer Institute, "But the investigators saw something with PAH." She added: "It's always hard to look at the environment and breast cancer. Exposures may have taken place in the past, and it may be hard to measure these exposures."
Because measuring chemical levels in adults has sometimes produced inconclusive results, the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences created four centers in 2002 to follow 1,800 six- and seven-year-old girls through puberty to see whether exposures to environmental agents affect speed of development.
The centers, in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, San Francisco and East Lansing, Mich, will also expose animals to chemical agents to see if they affect mammary gland development. Breast cancer research advocates involved in the study will explain the findings to the communities. The Lowey-Chafee bill did not appropriate money for these four centers.
"When we put [the research] together.we can really establish some kind of public policy," said Dr. Jose Russo, lead investigator at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, one of the four centers.
Russo and his counterparts at the other centers said that this study is extensive and unlike any that has taken place. But they added that their research is limited by funding and that additional questions will need to be answered.
"Four centers will scratch the surface about what we need to know about how the environment affects breast cancer," said Dr. Sue Heffelfinger, the lead investigator at the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Robert Hiatt, lead investigator at the University of California, agreed and said that with additional funding, the centers could expand the number of girls studied, get more details on their family lives and physical activity and could involve the community more.
"We're likely to uncover more questions, and it would be good to have different centers in different parts of the country," Hiatt said.
For now, early detection remains the best option for controlling breast cancer. The federally funded initiative that New Hampshire calls "Let No Woman Be Overlooked" began in 1997 under this assumption. The program provides free mammograms, pap smears and breast exams to low-income women. According to program coordinator Becky Bukowski, the program exceeded its goal of providing services for more than 3,000 women last year.
"Our ultimate goal is to reduce morbidity and mortality and we do that by enrolling people who wouldn't necessarily go for screening and be screened at an early age," Bukowski said.
The ultimate goal for Ryan, Hale Campoli and other advocates from New Hampshire and across the country who have worked on the bill is to end breast cancer, and they said they think the Lowey-Chafee breast cancer bill is a step in that direction. Rep. Lowey's spokeswoman, Julie Edwards, said Lowey would reintroduce the bill next session. According to Hourahan, Chafee had not made a decision yet.
"We're fighting to end this for all women," Ryan said. "Scientists want to make breast cancer a chronic disease. I disagree. Our goals need to be to learn what is causing so much breast cancer and what we can do to prevent it."
###
