Category: Washington, DC
Youth Turnout Could Be High This Election
By Paola Singer
WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 – Their activism may not match the intensity of their 1960’s counterparts, but college students in 2004 are shedding the political apathy that has characterized them for many years.
A look at young people’s political engagement, particularly in this year’s presidential battleground states, indicates their turnout at the polls could be one the highest in decades and could be a factor in the race’s outcome.
Sixty percent of Americans 18-29 have registered to vote in 2004, and of those, 85 percent say they plan to go to the polls in November, according to a September poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. If they do vote, it would represent a spike in political participation among youths, which has been on the decline since 1972, the first presidential election after the voting age was lowered to 18. Only in the 1992 election – much to the credit of independent candidate Ross Perot – did youth participation not decline.
This year, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan have the largest number of eligible young voters.
“Coming into college I was very apathetic about politics. I really didn’t know where I stood,” said Tarah Rogowski, a senior at the University of Miami. But after attending a few school-sponsored political events “just to get more information,” her attitude started to change.
Today she is the public relations coordinator for the university’s Council for Democracy, a non-partisan student organization that began its get-out-the-vote efforts two years ago. Among several initiatives, including debate-watch parties called “pitchers and politics,” they are selling T-shirts -which Rogowski designed – that read “voters are sexy.” Those who wear the shirt on Election Day will have the chance to win gift certificates from Starbucks and other goodies.
It seems her efforts, and those of other political groups at the university, are paying off. “If you go around campus most people have buttons and stickers,” she said.
“Those 8,000 votes could really make a difference on the way this election goes,” she said about the student body at Miami. “We have a very loud voice.”
In spite of the general perception that people of college age tend to be liberals, no party dominates the youth vote, making it hard to predict how it will tilt the electorate. A September poll conducted by CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement) and MTV found that 46 percent of registered voters aged 18 to 29 favored Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, while 40 percent supported President Bush. But according to a simultaneous Pew Research Center poll, 48 percent of voters in the same age group supported Bush, and 42 percent favored Kerry.
“Young people represent the largest independent demographic in the nation,” said Adam Alexander, spokesman for the New Voters Project, one of about a dozen non-partisan independent organizations that work to encourage young people to vote.
“The candidate who wins will be the candidate who has communicated more effectively with young voters,” Alexander said.
The issues that concern young voters the most are jobs and the economy, national security and the war in Iraq, according to those who pay attention to the youth vote..
“Young people are really following the debates to make up their minds,” Alexander said. “That indicates they are looking for substance.” He said 25 percent of young voters are undecided about their vote, compared to 8 percent of those over 65.
As Nov. 2 nears, campus organizations are working to boost turnout at the polls. “We are planning some big things for the lead-up to the election,” said Matt Scafidi, a 22-year-old University of Pennsylvania student working for the Rock the Vote campaign.
Scafidi mentioned a mock presidential debate with representatives from both parties in the coming days, makeshift ballots in all college houses “for those who have never seen a ballot box,” and outdoor Election Day events that will include free food.
“It’s really important to let young voters know about the identification requirements and where the polling places are,” he said.
The newfound political appetite of students still has to face the Election Day test. At Penn there is one polling site, at the east end of the seven-block campus. This has set off a debate between the school’s Democrats and Republicans, who initially started working together to obtain additional polling sites by petitioning the city election commissioner. Now the Penn Democrats are alone in their quest, with the Republicans alleging more polling sites could cause confusion and make way for voter fraud.
Carol Defries, executive director of the university’s office of government, community and public affairs, said the university decided to cease supporting students in their petition for fear of appearing partisan.
“Voting in the United States in 2004 is still subject to a dizzying hodgepodge of local and state regulation that can be difficult to navigate, especially for the first time,” wrote Jane Eisner, a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and youth vote pundit, recently.
A June poll about Election Day laws by CIRCLE found that states that have extended polling hours and that mail voter information saw higher voter turnout rates among the young in recent elections.
In spite of possible overcrowding at the University of Pennsylvania polling place, campaigners expect registered students to vote. “Registration has not been a tough sell at all,” said Rich Eisenberg, head of Penn Democrats. “Students are well motivated this semester.”
Both the Kerry and Bush campaigns are seizing on the opportunity to attract young voters, on and off campus. Adam Alexander of the New Voters Project said the College Republican National Committee raised $7 million and the Democratic Party recently spent $8 million on ads targeted at young voters.
“Politicians traditionally removed young voters from their lists,” Alexander said. “This turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.” But in this election, he said, “it is impossible for any young American to say that their vote doesn’t count.”
The number of young people in the nation has grown in recent years, reaching more than 40 million, and is expected to continue to do so.
“I cannot understand when I hear someone say that they are not interested in politics, ” Scafidi said. “If you care about any issue then you have an interest in politics.”
###
Bush Set to Sign Revised Special Education Law
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 - The 108th Congress is poised to send a bill to President Bush that would reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, updating the law that provides money and protections for the country's 6.7 million disabled students.
The House voted 397-3 in favor of the legislation Friday and the Senate approved it by voice vote before adjourning.
President Bush will likely sign the IDEA reauthorization into law before the completion of his first term.
House and Senate negotiators announced Wednesday that after an almost two-year debate, they had reached a compromise on the specific reforms each chamber sought for the current legislation, which was last modified in 1997.
The changes range from improving the discipline system for special education students to increasing standards for special education teachers, working more directly with parents and minimizing bureaucratic inefficiency.
"The agreement we have reached demonstrates what America has come to realize, that students with disabilities are a far too important priority to be used as a political tool or cast aside because of an election schedule," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the senior Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Kennedy, who co-authored the Senate version of the bill, has been involved with special education law since 1975, when Congress passed landmark legislation intended to ensure free and appropriate education for students with disabilities.
According to a Kennedy spokesman, the senator was instrumental in pushing through the legislation during the lame-duck congressional session.
Kennedy has acknowledged that parents might prefer the disciplinary protections of the 1997 law, but added that the Senate took steps to prevent special education students from being disciplined for behavior resulting from their disability.
Cutting red tape
The last reauthorization required a hearing whenever a disabled student faced school suspension of more than 10 days. Those hearings were designed to determine whether a disability identified on the student's individualized education program had caused the misbehavior.
Currently, all members of a student's individualized education team must be present at those meetings, a mandate that critics say slows the disciplinary process. The new bill requires that only the relevant members attend.
"With an (individualized education program) meeting comes a tremendous amount of red tape," said Alexa Marrero, a spokeswoman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. "Now the school, the parent and the relevant members of the (program) are going to get together and look at the fact patterns. It's going to make a big difference."
According to Marrero, schools have had an extremely difficult time separating infractions from disabilities and some teachers have complained that they lack control. "Virtually everything could be attributed to a disability," Marrero said. "The burden of proof was entirely on the schools, and they had to prove a negative."
Gary Urgonski, director of special education at Cape Cod Regional Technical High School in Harwich, said that assembling a student's whole team can be difficult and that as long as all the necessary people are at the hearing, special education students will remain protected.
Urgonski oversees more than 200 special education students at Cape Cod Tech. According to the Massachusetts Department of Education, there were more than 3,900 special education students in Barnstable County in the 2003-2004 school year.
40 percent goal far off
The bill would require new special education teachers to meet competency standards in their subject areas, something currently required of other classroom teachers. To calm critics who said that special education teachers often teach multiple subjects, the bill provides teachers additional time to comply as long as they meet standards in their primary field.
Bill Rokicki, director of student services for Falmouth schools, said the goal is retaining the best teachers, not imposing stiffer standards. "It's an absolute myth that if we raise the standards, we get better teachers," he said. "If you raise salaries, then you get the better teachers."
Special education funding remains controversial. According to the original 1975 legislation, Congress must provide schools with 40 percent of the funding needed for special education programming - a percentage it has never achieved. The bulk of special education funding comes from local taxes.
While the federal appropriation has increased from $2.1 billion in 1994 to $10.1 billion in 2004, Congress still currently provides only 19 percent of special education funding. The new bill calls for Congress to "recommit" to reaching that 40 percent mark by 2011.
"I deeply regret that this bill does not require the federal government to meet its full funding commitment to local schools to help them cover the costs of special education," Kennedy said on the Senate floor Friday.
Walter Healy, executive director of the Cape Cod Collaborative, which helps coordinate a variety of education-related services throughout the Cape, was hardly surprised.
"The intentions are good, but they set a goal of 40 percent, and they never come through with it," Healy said. "And the locals have to make up the difference."
(Published: November 22, 2004)
Delegation Frowns on National Sales Tax
WASHINGTON 11/19/04- Replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax doesn't sit well with some members of the New Hampshire delegation, but most think simplifying the tax code is necessary.
"It's really a bad idea whose time has not come," said Sen. Judd Gregg, who will chair the Budget Committee in January. "We don't need a new major engine of revenue."
President George Bush has said overhauling the tax code will be one of his major priorities in the next four years. An August campaign appearance in which Bush entertained the idea of replacing the current tax code with a national sales tax sparked a buzz about the idea.
Sen. John Sununu said that reforming the tax code was necessary, but said a national sales tax wash highly unlikely to get through committee, much less make it to the House or Senate floor.
"We need a flatter, fairer income tax that provides a generous exemption for families and eliminates the complex maze of loopholes and deductions that frustrates most taxpayers," Sununu said in a written statement.
Rep. Charles Bass has similar feelings about the tax, according to spokeswoman Margo Shideler.
"Although the Congressman supports reforming our current tax system to make it fairer, flatter and easier to understand, he has serious concerns that a national sales tax would undermine the New Hampshire advantage that comes from not having a state sales tax," Shideler said.
Rep. Jeb Bradley said that it was too early to say what would work best- a national sales tax, a flat tax or simplifying the tax code- but said simplifying the tax code was necessary.
"Our tax code is really pretty cumbersome and complicated," Bradley said. "At a minimum we have to figure out a way to simplify our tax code, so that compliance costs are easier to deal with."
Bradley said there are benefits and downsides to a national sales tax.
"People will argue that a consumption tax is more transparent. You know what you're paying, when you're paying. If you object to the tax you don't have to consume that good or service. So it's a little bit more voluntary in that regard."
"On the other hand, there are those who do believe that it more adversely affects people at the lower end of the economic spectrum," Bradley said.
Chris Edwards, a scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, agreed that it was more transparent, but there are problems with the details of the tax.
"If you make $50,000 on income, you'll see $50,000 on pay stub. But when you went to the store prices would be higher and you'd pay the tax," Edwards said. "And questions of whether you could do the rate that high, what possible rate would be..do you tax everything, do you exempt healthcare, do you exempt food?"
Both Edwards and Bruce Bartlett, an economist at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a public policy research institute in Washington, said that the tax would have to be about 30 percent.
Edwards said that in 1990s the most public plan would have replaced the individual and corporate income tax with a 15 percent sales tax. He said with the latest proposals the rate would have to be 30 percent.
Bartlett said the tax may even have to be higher and that some estimates place it at 50 percent.
"It's just utterly, utterly impractical," Bartlett said. "All the experiences of foreign countries tell us that you can't collect rates much above 10 percent."
Edwards said he did not think Bush would impose a national sales tax.
"It's certainly the most radical proposal.. He might not want to be as radical as a sales tax," Edwards said.
###
Congress Extends Its Year
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15- Before the 109th Congress arrives in January, the current group of lawmakers will meet to deal with unfinished business in a lame-duck session that begins tomorrow and will likely end Friday.
Budgetary issues and intelligence reform are the most pressing concerns lawmakers face, but it is unclear how the House and Senate will move to act on issues they failed to resolve over the past two years.
The lame-duck session also will provide a glimpse into party strategies before the new Congress convenes in January with strengthened Republican majorities in both the House and Senate and under the direction of Republican President George Bush, who has pledged to accomplish more bipartisan work during his second term.
Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and the 108th Congress passed only four of 13 appropriations bills during the last session, leaving it unknown how much funding will go toward areas like energy, agriculture and education.
Three of the four bills that did pass before the election involved military spending: the defense bill, the Homeland Security bill and the military construction bill.
Republican leadership will also likely push to increase the current $7.4 trillion federal debt ceiling by roughly $650 million to accommodate government spending, a move Democrats will point to as an example of Republican fiscal irresponsibility.
"It's slam-dunk evidence of the dysfunctional Republican Congress that they have to call a special session to extend the nation's borrowing limit in the face of bloated deficits and debt spiraling out of control," said former presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Steve Schwadron, spokesman for Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., added that Republicans have failed to level with the American public about their massive spending habits.
"This leadership insisted on tax cuts, insisted on this bogus prescription drug plan and the war is very costly," said Schwadron. "If you're going to do all this, let's stop pretending. We've hit the legal limit for the public debt. If they don't want to raise it, then we shouldn't be spending at this pace."
"Omnibus" bill may be next
Republicans may avoid a direct vote on the debt ceiling by rolling the increase into an "omnibus" spending bill for legislators to vote on. The umbrella package could encompass multiple appropriations and provide a quick fix to avoid wrangling over separate, detailed appropriations bills.
Congress also could pass a continuing resolution, which would allow spending to continue at its current level until a designated January date when the new members would be forced to address appropriations bills. The current continuing resolution ends Saturday.
According to Vanderbilt University political science professor Bruce Oppenheimer, author of several books about Congress, omnibus spending bills often result in a mixed bag - and frequently, lawmakers don't even know what they're voting for.
"The fine print gets lost," Oppenheimer said. "There will be stuff slipped in and slipped out at the end. I usually think of it as a 'Clint Eastwood bill.' You get the good, the bad, and the ugly."
Regarding intelligence reform, the House and Senate have sparred over specific terms that would address recommendations from the Sept. 11 commission.
Intelligence budget secret
Last Monday, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, author of the Senate bill, announced an important concession to House Republicans by agreeing to keep the size of the nation's overall intelligence budget secret. Formerly, the Senate version of the bill followed commission recommendations to publicly disclose the figure.
Both the House and Senate already have responded to one of the commission's primary recommendations by passing bills to create a national intelligence director post that would improve coordination between the CIA and FBI. Differences in the extent of that authority, however, continue to hamstring progress.
While his office remains hopeful that intelligence reform will be accomplished, Schwadron said "an intra-Republican meltdown" may prevent the bill's passage before the lame-duck session ends, as Republicans in the House and Senate cannot agree on certain terms of their respective bills.
Kerry, who claimed that Republican leaders are "preparing to set aside intelligence reform," said that the majority party has failed to execute two central aspects of its platform.
"Can they even claim with a straight face to be fiscal conservatives or security hawks?" Kerry asked. "We need to offer strong reforms for our security and a blueprint for restoring fiscal responsibility."
Four lame-ducks in a row
Despite an amendment to the Constitution in 1933 that shifted congressional and presidential calendars to minimize the frequency of these sessions, this is the fourth consecutive lame-duck session.
While unfinished appropriations work is the most frequent cause of the extended sessions, associate Senate historian Donald Ritchie said there have been noteworthy lame-duck moments.
In 2002, legislation for the creation of the department of Homeland Security and the Sept. 11 commission was passed. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in a 1998 lame-duck session, only to be acquitted later by the Senate. And former Sen. Joseph McCarthy was censured by the Senate in a December lame-duck session in 1954.
According to Ritchie, there are many reasons Congress may not finish its business before elections, from disagreements between the House and Senate to making sure the president's agenda is taken care of by his congressional leaders.
"The congressional schedule has always worked a little like an accordion," Ritchie said. "There are times when it spreads out and not a lot gets done, and there are times when it's packed in and very intense."
It also helps that the pre-election pressure is gone.
"They have certain work to get done," Ritchie said. "And they can operate with more speed and efficiency when they're not looking over their shoulder."
Vets Remember at WWII Memorial
WASHINGTON, Nov 10 – On a chilly yet sunny Wednesday morning, dozens of white-haired men and women solemnly strolled around the recently opened World War II Memorial. Wrapped in warm coats, some walking with the help of canes and many wearing caps loaded with patriotic pins, the veterans’ eyes moistened as six-decades-old memories converged with the fresh images of the fight in Iraq.
This Veterans Day is the second consecutive the country celebrates at war, and it is expected to draw crowds to the monument plaza, the last to open on the National Mall, that pays tribute to the 16 million U.S. men and women who served in 1941-1945.
Among the first to arrive at the memorial was Edward Roser, a 76 year-old Navy Seabee veteran from West Shokan, N.Y. This year, Roser said, he plans to pay respects not only to the men he met while serving in the South Pacific but also to those deployed in Iraq.
“We all are veterans, we all do the same thing: defend our country,” a somber Roser said.
Amid heavy combat in the insurgent city of Fallujah -- and with over 1,140 combat deaths in the 21-month-long war in Iraq -- veterans present in the capital for the multiple wreath laying ceremonies taking place Thursday said they will have their minds and hearts with the families of those serving in the Gulf.
Walking along the sober granite plaza of the World War II Memorial in the company of his wife and daughter, Richard Neal, a veteran pilot from North Canaan, Conn., said he planned to say a Veterans Day “prayer for all the boys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
As with much of the country, conflicting views about the war in Iraq can be found in this veterans’ spot, which is located between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.
While James E. Shugars, 78, a veteran from North Carolina, saw the action in Iraq “as an opportunity to get some democracy in an area a lot older than Western civilization,” fellow veteran George H. Smith, from Iowa, said he believed the country “should have never started the war. Instead we should have cooperated with the United Nations.”
Aside from their personal stances on the Iraq war, a common thought among World War II veterans is that their monument was long overdue. Approved by Congress in 1995, the $175 million monument was opened to the public on April 29 and dedicated in a ceremony that drew 150,000 veterans on Memorial Day weekend. And while the official Veterans Day ceremonies will take place across the Potomac River in Arlington National Cemetery, the new monument will have private ceremonies for veterans’ families.
“I wanted to come here ever since it was opened,” Neal said. “I just wished they would have built this place earlier so that more veterans could have seen it.”
Neal, who was deployed in England and will celebrate his 80 th birthday this weekend, is one of the 210,000 men and women from Connecticut who served in World War II.
Over 4,500 state residents died overseas.
The state’s commissioner of Veterans Affairs, Linda Schwartz, also said the memorial has come late for the majority of the people who served that war. “Around 1,300 World War II veterans are passing away every day,” she said.
The aged men and women strolling along the wreathed columns shared the place with scores of high school students and eighth graders who didn’t pay close attention to the inscriptions on pride, freedom and brave actions but rather mingled and played by the fountain.
“Young people don’t know anything about what happened in the Second World War,” Smith said. “That is why it is so important that we have a memorial, like Vietnam and Korean veterans do.”
As Schwartz sees it, “the monument is necessary because if it wasn’t for that generation the world would be much different.”
Meanwhile Neal, Shugars, Smith and Roser, all veterans of the Second World War, returned the compliment to the men and women in Iraq. “They are worth all the respect we can give them,” Shugars said.
Delegation Sets Priorities for 109th Congress
WASHINGTON 11/4/04- Protecting the country against terrorism and reforming Social Security will top the agendas of members of the all-Republican New Hampshire delegation when the 109 th Congress convenes in January.
With a solid grip on the House, where Republicans picked up three seats, and reinforced sway in the Senate, where the GOP picked up four seats, accomplishing these goals should be easier than last session, according to delegation members.
Sen. Judd Gregg, who identified protecting the country against terrorists as his number one concern, said he would like to advance the BioShield II bill, sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Ct.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). The bill supplements legislation signed in July which authorized $5.6 billion over the next 10 years for stockpiling of vaccines and drugs to fight bioterror agents, such as anthrax.
Gregg also said he expected a prescription drug re-importation proposal "very quickly." He introduced one in June, but the bill was buried in committee. Rep. Jeb Bradley introduced a similar bill in the House in July, with the same result. Bradley said that passing the legislation was his top priority this session, along with winning the war on terror.
Both Gregg and Sen. John Sununu said overhauling Social Security is a priority. Both senators have introduced legislation that would create personal retirement accounts to supplement Social Security. Sununu said President Bush, who said Social Security reform was a priority in his news conference Thursday, would take these proposals into account in developing his own plan.
"My guess is the president will look at the legislation that's out there, work with senators like me and Sen. Gregg that have introduced legislation and try to develop a legislative proposal with his own imprint," Sununu said.
Another top priority of Sununu's is passage of the Jumpstart Broadband Act, which would overhaul telecommunications laws to boost wireless broadband Internet access. Sununu said that if the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, where the bill has been sitting, worked at a good pace, it could be marking up the bill next fall.
Telecommunications reform is also a top priority of Rep. Charles Bass. He also said he would focus on a bill he introduced in October that would help develop other sources of renewable energy. The legislation, co-sponsored by Bradley, stalled in the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Some members of the delegation will seek new committee assignments in fulfilling their goals.
Gregg said that the chairmanship of the Budget Committee was a "distinct possibility" and that he had a lot of interest in that area. While he has also been mentioned as a possible Bush cabinet choice, Gregg said there were not too many positions in which he was interested.
Bass, along with Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), are the new co-chairmen of the Tuesday Group, 35 moderate Republicans who meet each week to define agendas and strategy. Bass said this would take up a lot more of his time than in previous years.
Sununu said he didn't expect to join any more committees, as he is a member of five already and chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism. Bradley said he was still thinking about where he might move, but wanted to remain on the Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees.
But even with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, fulfilling these agendas could be difficult, according to Tripp Baird, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"On paper [it's] great, but in reality, if the majority leader cannot get 60 [votes] on any major issue.Democrats can still bottle things up, and I expect they will," Baird said.
But the New Hampshire members were optimistic about the gains in the Senate and confident that they could reach across the aisle to pass legislation that has stalled this session.
"I'm willing to hold out the olive branch and develop some common ground," Bass said.
###
Insurers Eye on Congress Action on Terrorism Insurance Law Extension
By Huijuan Jia
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2004-A bill renewing a law that provides federal assistance to insurance companies that cover damage from terrorism was approved by a House committee Wednesday.
This was encouraging news for commercial property insurers, like The Hartford Financial Services Group, who rely on the federal government's commitment to share the majority of losses caused by terrorism attacks.
"We are pleased by the House committee's action," said Cynthia Michener, spokeswoman of the Hartford-based insurance company. She said Harford is waiting for congressional action before making a decision on whether to include terrorism coverage in new policies next year. She said the company hopes Congress will pass the bill before the election.
Michener said that if the law is not extended, the company has to decide whether it would be able to underwrite terrorism coverage without federal protection.
The bill, known as the Terrorism Insurance Extension Backstop Act of 2004, was approved on a voice vote Wednesday by the House Committee on Financial Services. The legislation would grant a two-year extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 2002, which will expire by the end of 2005.
The current terrorism insurance law took effect in November 2002 in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It enables commercial insurers to provide affordable terrorism coverage to policyholders. The act establishes a program with the Treasury Department, under which the federal government shares the risk of loss from future foreign terrorist attacks.
If a terrorist attack causes a policyholder a loss in excess of $5 million, the insurance company would pay a basic deductible above which the government would cover 90 percent of the remaining costs.
Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), a member of the committee and co-sponsor of the bill, said that extension of the law would guarantee the availability of terrorism insurance coverage for businesses.
"After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many businesses were no longer able to purchase insurance to protect against property losses that might occur in any future terrorist attacks," Shays said in a written statement, "I support the legislation because it created a temporary program to share future insured terrorism losses with the property-casualty insurance industry and policyholders."
The insurance industry wants action on the bill so companies can begin negotiations on new insurance policies and contracts. Annual policies for coverage starting in the new year are considered and negotiated starting in September. The policy period for such annual insurance contracts would run beyond the expiration date of the 2002 law. As a result, part of the coverage term would be in effect without the protections of the federal assistance.
"This calendar mismatch could create adverse financial consequences for commercial policyholders, insurers and the U.S. economy," said Leigh Ann Pusey, the American Insurance Association's senior vice president on government affairs. "Because commercial insurance policies taking effect in the early months of 2005 are being negotiated this fall, those financial consequences would be felt very soon if the law is not extended this year."
Advocates for extension of the law are also waiting for the Senate's action on a similar bill introduced by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.).
"This law is working as it was intended: to provide some measure of insurance for American workers and American companies against the risk of terrorism," Sen. Dodd said. "It needs and deserves to be extended. I look forward to working with members of the Banking Committee to accomplish this goal."
But a spokesman for Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) said the terror insurance program is not set for action by that panel.
"In the near term nothing's scheduled, but it's certainly something we're going to look at closely through the hearing process," Shelby spokesman Andrew Gray said.
After the House approval, the insurance association urged the Senate to act. "Time is running short, and there is still much work to be done before this bill can be signed into law," Pusey said.
According to a recently released study, U.S. businesses are buying more terrorism insurance amid international tensions.
Marsh Inc., a New York-based risk and insurance services firm, said in a report that almost half of its clients are buying property terrorism insurance in the second quarter of 2004, more than double from the same period last year.
Opponents of the bill said that insurance industry is deceiving Congress about need to extend terrorism insurance law, arguing that renewal of the law could cost taxpayers billions that industry could afford to pay and stifle the development of a private market for terrorism insurance. They argue that the Congress should not act on the issue until the Treasury Department finishes a study, due next June, it is conducting on the subject.
J. Robert Hunter, the Consumer Federation of America's director of insurance and a former Chief Actuary of the Federal Insurance Administration, said in a press release that the insurance industry is trying to "hoodwink" Congress into extending the law before the Treasury Department completes its report showing that the law is "no longer necessary."
In April, the federation released a review of the current law concluding that it would not be necessary after 2005. The ability of the private market to insure against terrorism is "enormous and growing," insurer profits are "very substantial" and the financial condition of these companies overall is "rock solid," the report said.
###
Bush and Kerry Vie for Pocketbook Issues
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 28 - Pocketbook issues have always been of the utmost importance to voters, and while the war in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism may have become pivotal issues in this campaign, the economy remains an important factor voters will consider.
Bush and Kerry have distinct stances on how to deal with the U.S. economy over the next four years, and during the third presidential debate in St. Louis each laid out the their overarching goals on healthcare, jobs, Social Security and taxes. Each used the debate - like candidates have in years past - to distinguish himself from his rival.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 45 million Americans, or 15.2 percent of the population, do not have health insurance, an increase of 5 million since 2001. Employers around the country have scaled back or cut out their employee coverage, and insurance premiums have increased since 2001 by more than 50 percent on average.
Each side has addressed this issue with its own plan.
Bush's plan calls for giving individuals a $1,000 annual tax credit to purchase health insurance and making health savings accounts tax-deductable. These accounts allow individuals to put away money tax-free for health coverage.
"These are accounts that allow somebody to buy a low-premium, high-deductible catastrophic plan and couple it with tax-free savings," Bush said in St. Louis. "Businesses can contribute; employees can contribute on a contractual basis."
Bush also advocates medical malpractice reform that would cap medical malpractice awards at $250,000.
However, Kerry's plan focuses on creating a better prescription drug benefit that would allow for the importation of prescription drugs from Canada, and reimbursing employers who pay for three quarters of the cost of "catastrophic cases" for their employees if they insure all of their workers.
"In the Senate we passed the right of Americans to import drugs from Canada," Kerry said in the debate. "But the president and his friends took it out in the House, and now you don't have that right." Kerry added that Bush "made it illegal - illegal - for Medicare to actually go out and bargain for lower prices."
The senator went on to explain that his plan would allow for individuals "to buy into the same health care plan that senators and congressmen give themselves," a proposal which Bush does not support.
Bush and Kerry also disagree over how best to deal with Social Security in the coming years. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan announced last summer that Social Security would have to be adjusted for it to provide the same benefits to future retirees that it does currently.
Bush advocates letting citizens put some of the money collected by Social Security into private savings accounts.
"I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust," Bush said.
Kerry's plan is more traditional, fixing the problem through 2075, he says, by repealing some of Bush's tax cuts. Bush's plan, Kerry says, is an "invitation to disaster" that would take $2 trillion from Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
"Just that tax cut that went to the top one percent of America would have saved Social Security until the year 2075," Kerry said, noting that the Democrats balanced the budget in the 1990s.
One of Kerry's main campaign points is job creation. He likes to point out that Bush is the first president since the Great Depression to preside over a net loss of jobs. While Kerry often over-simplifies this issue, and while the numbers could change by January, he is correct. Herbert Hoover's presidential term, from 1929 to 1933, was the last in which the overall number of American jobs decreased.
Bush believes in providing more education and new training for workers who have lost their jobs, while Kerry advocates closing loopholes in the tax code that make it beneficial for companies to move their factories overseas.
"Here's some trade adjustment assistance money for you to go a community college in your neighborhood, a community college which is providing the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century," Bush said, when asked what he would say to someone whose job had been sent overseas. He also said that educating citizens well was the best way to make the economy grow.
Kerry, however, said he would try to make the "playing field" level in the corporate tax system.
"Today, if you're an American business, you actually get a benefit for going overseas," he said in St. Louis.
"That's not smart," the senator added. "And when I'm president, we're going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond and we're going to use that money to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations, five percent. And we're going to have a manufacturing jobs credit and a job hiring credit so we actually help people be able to hire here."
Taxes are also a major sticking point between Bush and Kerry.
Kerry frequently chides Bush for giving the richest citizens of the country a tax break and causing the deficit to increase dramatically. The senator's plan calls for rolling back the tax cuts enacted in 2001 on those Americans making more than $200,000 a year, and raising the minimum wage over several years to seven dollars an hour. In addition, the senator has called for reinstating "pay-as-you-go" rules from the 1990s, which require funding plans for how to pay for new spending proposals.
Bush argues that everyone benefited from the tax cuts of the past four years. Specifically, tax credits were given to married people and persons with children. Bush also considers the overhaul of the federal role in education he signed into law to be a job creation act, because theoretically it helps children receive a better education, which in turn helps them get better employment.
The two have elaborated on their own plans and attacked their opponents' plans. Both Bush and Kerry have set out different economic paths for the country regarding the future of Social Security, health care and job creation, among many other things. And, if things go smoothly, the country will know on Wednesday which path it will follow.
Bush and Kerry Contrast on Iraq, Homeland Security
By Thomas Rains
WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 21 -The Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq have brought foreign policy to the forefront of the 2004 presidential campaign.
For years Americans would "vote their pocketbooks," but now the threat of terrorism competes with economic issues as the voters' main concern. Because of this, George W. Bush and John F. Kerry have repeatedly expressed their positions on foreign policy, on the future of the war in Iraq and on homeland security.
On Iraq, the President and senator agreed before the Iraq war on the possibility that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to U.S. national security.
Kerry voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq in 2002, yet they disagree on the timing of the war, the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and the state of the "Coalition of the Willing" that Bush assembled to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.
In a second term, Bush has implied he would continue his administration's policy of fighting terrorists in countries that harbor them.
"This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," Bush said in the first presidential debate in Miami on Sept. 30.
Kerry, on the other hand, has said that as president he would work hard through summits and diplomacy to rebuild alliances that he says Bush has let disintegrate.
"I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances," Kerry said at the same debate.
In the first debate the candidates addressed issues relating to foreign policy. The debate provided a strong comparison of the two candidates' positions in a campaign that many have argued was starved of discussion about important issues..
While he voted in favor of allowing Bush to invade Iraq, Kerry disagrees with Bush's timing for the invasion. During the debate, the senator said that America needed to be smarter in its execution of force in the world, and then explained his reasoning.
"Smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden," Kerry said, "and taking it off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein."
Bush defends his decision to invade Iraq, and has stuck throughout the campaign to his belief that he made the right decision.
"In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize," Bush said in Miami. "We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction."
In the months after the actual combat mission to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, American troops have battled insurgents while they have tried to ready Iraq for elections and complete sovereignty. Kerry has accused Bush of not preparing for this phase of the operation and has said the United States must hold a summit to bring allies into the reconstruction process, while Bush has said the coalition must push forward and work towards letting the Iraqis be free.
"He rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace," Kerry said during the debate. "You don't take America to war unless you have the plan to win the peace."
Bush has focused on the ultimate goal.
"A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that's essential," Bush said. "A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."
Kerry agrees that a free Iraq is the goal; however, his method is different from Bush's current course.
"I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq: with a summit, by doing better training, faster," Kerry said. "By doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N and the elections."
"Our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace," the senator said.
Bush has stuck to his plan, and reiterated this in the debate.
"There are 100,000 troops trained--police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year," Bush said. "Yes, we're getting the job done."
Training of the Iraqis is being done by forces from the Coalition of the Willing, which is currently made up of 28 countries. There are approximately 133,000 foreign troops in Iraq, of which about 112,000 are from the United States, according to the British Broadcasting Corp. Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for this preponderance of American soldiers and claims that there should be a greater international presence.
"What we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in [the Iraq war]," Kerry said. "But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states." Kerry also accused Bush of turning away the help of the United Nations.
Bush, who touts the countries of the coalition on a regular basis during campaign speeches, disagrees with the senator and says that a president cannot build a coalition when "you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq."
Bush added that "Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm the President."
On the issue of homeland security, Kerry has repeatedly accused Bush of not providing enough resources to protect the United States from another terrorist attack, and has said that before Sept. 11 the President was against a Department of Homeland Security. However, Bush did support creation of the department, providing the largest overhaul of homeland security in the country's history.
Bush stands by his actions but Kerry says he has not done enough.
Kerry accuses Bush of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and funding Iraqi police officers instead of spending enough money to secure ports, tunnels, bridges and subways and bolster first responder resources in the United States.
Bush refutes this.
During the debate Bush noted that he had "tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security" and said the country has added more border patrol on the Mexican border and was working to do the same on the Canadian border.
Bush also defends the controversial Patriot Act, which Congress passed after the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush calls it "vital" that Congress renew it to allow "our law enforcement to disrupt terror cells."
Many critics of the Patriot Act argue that it violates the civil liberties of Americans while not doing enough to stop terrorists in the United States.
Kerry voted for it in the Senate but he argues that some parts of it must be changed. According to his campaign website, Kerry would keep 95 percent of the provisions of the act. Among other things, specifically he wants to strengthen the provision that cracks down on money laundering. He also wants to revise the provision that gives the government the power to search a person's library records, by requiring a judicial review of the evidence before a search is allowed.
Kerry and Bush both have clearly stated their positions on the role of the United States in the world, on the war on terrorism and on homeland security. In the post-Sept. 11 world these issues will play a bigger role when voters go to the polls on Nov. 2 than they have in past elections.
###
Bill Passes in House that Would Remove Barriers to Islet Cell Transplantation
WASHINGTON 10/14/04--With the Walk for Diabetes on Saturday in Portsmouth, the search for a cure for the more than a million Americans who have Type 1 diabetes comes into focus.
Last week, the search got a boost when the Congress passed a bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., and Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., that would remove some of the barriers to research on islet cell transplantations, a procedure that, if successful, would free Type 1 diabetics of insulin injections.
The problem, addressed by the bill, was that the procurement of islet cells, which are obtained from a donor pancreas, was not a qualifying procedure under organ procurement laws, as islet cell transplantation was classified as an experimental procedure
Not only did this block make it difficult for researchers to obtain pancreases, but it gave them little incentive to do so, as they wouldn't be certified to transplant cells from them anyhow. Also, in order to receive federal grants, an organization needs to be certified to perform organ transplants or procurement procedures.
The legislation, the Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004, removed that block by making islet cell transplantation research a qualifying procedure..
The act also provides for an annual review by an oversight committee from the National Institutes of Health that will assess, among other things, the adequacy of federal funding and ways to increase the supply of islet cells, including procurement of organs from animals, or xenotransplantation.Bradley said the issue took on new importance for him after a visit in April to the McKelvie Middle School in Bedford, where he said a dozen children with Type 1 diabetes spoke about the difficulties of living with the disease.
"It just brought home to me how important. pancreatic islet cell research is in order to give us opportunities to cure these debilitating diseases," said Bradley.
Bass, in a press release, said, "This breakthrough medical research deserves every opportunity to successfully treat patients afflicted with diabetes. It has the potential to improve and save lives."
In Type 1 Diabetes, the immune system destroys the insulin-producing islet cells in the pancreas. According to the Mayo Clinic website, in pancreatic islet cell transplantation researchers remove islets from the pancreas of a deceased donor. A transplant for a 154 pound person requires one million islets, the amount in two pancreases.
Islets are injected into the liver via a catheter, because the cells grow well in the liver and the liver can perform as a back-up pancreas to produce insulin. The entire procedure can be done with a local anesthesia and takes less than an hour.
Islet cell transplantations done in the 1990's did not succeed in freeing patients from insulin injections for more than a year. But in 2000, Dr. James Shapiro of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, reported that seven of his transplantation patients had sustained insulin-production.
A spokesperson for the National Institutes of Health would not comment of why there were barriers to this procedure and what the dangers were with islet cell transplantation, but according to the institute's website, the dangers include anemia, nerve damage, meningitis and vulnerability to infection. Another obstacle is the scarcity of pancreases, as only 6,000 are available each year.
Alternatives to harvesting cells from adult pancreases include stem cells and pancreases of animals.
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases announced two weeks ago that it plans to award $75 million over five years to clinical centers in Iowa City, Miami, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Canada and Sweden to study islet transplantation, according to a press release.
The transplantation act went to the White House Oct. 13 but the President has not signed it, according to a spokesman in the press office. The White House spokesman said he did not know when the President would sign it.
###
