Category: Washington, DC
Democratic Candidates Speak Out in First Joint Forum
By Kim Forrest
In their first joint forum, the 2004 democratic presidential candidates spoke out on issues ranging from education to the war in Iraq Wednesday night.
The forum, sponsored by the Children’s Defense Fund, a non-profit children’s advocacy group, was purported to focus on issues relating to children, but talk of the American success in the war on Iraq was on everyone’s minds and lips.
While the democratic candidates agreed on many issues, the war was a subject where the candidates were divided. Five of the candidates had previously expressed their opposition to military action in Iraq and maintained their beliefs in the forum.
“[The war] opens up a new dangerous preemptive doctrine,” Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean said.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), former Senator from Illinois Carol Mosley Braun, Rev. Al Sharpton of New York, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), expressed similar sentiments in their opposition to war, saying that the war took the focus away from domestic issues.
“I’m glad Saddam was toppled,” Sharpton said. “But I would also like to see things toppled in this country.”
Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John Edwards (D-NC), John Kerry (D-MA), and Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) all voted for the resolution that entitled President Bush to attack Iraq. They defended their position, stating how action in Iraq is part of protecting the homeland, and also noting that domestic programs should not suffer because of the money and attention paid on the war.
“This is not an either/or choice. It is actually the responsibility of the President of the United States to be able to do two things at the same time,” Edwards said, gaining laughter and applause from the crowd.
After discussing the war, candidates were asked questions on a variety of topics. The Democrats were many times placed on the defensive, as was Kerry, who defended his announcement this week that, if elected, he would only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who supported a woman’s right to have an abortion.
“Women have the right to make that critical, painful, and difficult decision,” Kerry said. “And the government has no business intervening in it.
When Lieberman was asked why he did not serve in the military during Vietnam, he explained that he was exempt for two reasons, the fact that he was a student, and because he was a father.
“And do I regret it? I do,” he said, and added later, “But in some sense, I hope that my service in public office and particularly my backing of the military has helped, in some ways, make up for that.”
As the program dictated, children’s issues ranging from education and school testing to foster care were highlighted in the discussion.
Like the other candidates, Gephardt was critical of the current administration’s handling of such issues.
“This President and this administration has made a fraud of Leave No Child Behind,” he said, referring to the current administration’s education program, “We need new leadership in this country to really Leave No Child Behind.”
The final question, relayed to all of the candidates, was about the current affirmative action case, a program that all of the candidates support.
“The University of Michigan was trying to…create diversity, to give opportunities, in ways that did not entail quotas,” Braun said.
While all the candidates drew applause and laughter from the crowd throughout the two hour forum, it was Lieberman who stood out with the most resounding response of the evening, as he expressed that the Democrats would be successful in the 2004 presidential campaign, despite skepticism about beating the incumbent President.
“I want to tell you why I know we can beat George W. Bush,” he said. “Because Al Gore and I did it.”
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Congress Hears Testimony on SARS; Gregg says U.S. Needs More Vaccine Development
WASHINGTON, D.C.—A day after the Senate heard testimony from health experts on the growing threat of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg joined Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., at a press conference Tuesday where immunization advocates supported a bill that would encourage manufacturers to develop vaccines for 21st century health threats.
Both the House and Senate earmarked $16 million in the emergency supplemental spending bill for SARS research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee-which Gregg chairs-assured the experts Monday that Congress would do all they could to help public health agencies fight the spread of the virus in the United States.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, executive director of the CDC, told the committee that health officials worldwide are trying to contain the virus as it continues to spread throughout Asia, Canada and the United States.
"Cases of SARS continue to be reported from around the world," Gerberding said. "The disease is still primarily limited to travelers to Hong Kong, Singapore and mainland China, to health care personnel who have taken care of SARS patients and to close contacts of SARS patients."
Gerberding told the committee that officials believe the virus is primarily being transmitted through droplet spread from infected people coughing and sneezing, but they also are concerned about airborne transmission and the possibility that objects that become contaminated in the environment could serve as modes of spread.
The committee also heard from World Health Organization executive director Dr. David Heymann, who testified live via satellite from Geneva about efforts around the world to prevent the spread of the disease. Heymann said the United States is the only country doing work to develop a vaccine for SARS, which has no known treatment.
There have been no known SARS related deaths in the United States, but 89 have died worldwide including seven in Canada.
Gregg said the American people are growing increasingly alarmed about the highly contagious virus, and expressed concern at the hearing Monday and at the press conference Tuesday that there is not enough incentive for researchers to develop and manufacture vaccines for new diseases, such as SARS.
Gregg said Tuesday that vaccine developers face a huge liability if people are injured by the immunizations because of a loophole in the current Vaccine Injury Compensation Program that allows families to sue vaccine manufacturers for billions of dollars.
"If the vaccine industry was half as lucrative as being a trial lawyer, we'd have vaccines for the common cold by now," Gregg said.
The Improved Vaccine Affordability and Availability Act, introduced last week by Frist, would expand the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program of 1986 by extending the statute of limitations under which individuals can apply for compensation if they believe they were injured by a vaccine. The law would also close the loophole for major lawsuits and encourage researchers to develop more vaccines.
"We're in desperate shape relative to producing vaccines in this country and we have to put in a regime that's going to allow us to produce vaccines and still be fair to those who feel they've been injured," Gregg said. "That's why we have the vaccine injury compensation fund that's been set up. It's effective, and unfortunately it's being skirted by various procedures."
The bill is facing opposition, however, from several senators, including Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the HELP Committee's senior democratic member. Kennedy's press secretary Jim Manley said Tuesday, however, that Frist was working with fellow HELP committee member Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., "try to make some improvements to the bill," with the help of Kennedy, before the bill is discussed in committee Wednesday.
"There is a genuine desire to try to reach an agreement tonight (Tuesday) to make it a more bipartisan" so the committee hearing will run smoothly Wednesday Manley said.
In a statement released last week that Kennedy never actually delivered, the senator said the bill, as it was introduced, would deny parents and children their day in court, grant special protection to manufacturers and would nullify the pending claims of millions of families. While Gregg and Frist presented the names of dozens of health organizations Tuesday that support the bill, Kennedy said in the statement that there are many national parent groups who oppose the legislation.
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
U.S. Senate Honors Sinking of Thresher
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — Forty years after the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Thresher sank to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, New Hampshire's two senators supported legislation commemorating the event.
Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., introduced the bill Tuesday, and later that day it unanimously passed the Senate. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. and Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, were co-sponsors.
The submarine sank on April 10, 1963, about 220 miles east of Boston, as it conducted deep-diving exercises. All aboard - 16 officers, 96 enlisted men and 17 civilians - died in the tragedy.
"This legislation honors their brave service, and the service of all submariners who are 'on eternal patrol,'" Sununu said in a press release. "The loss of the Thresher was an enormous tragedy for the U.S. submarine service, for the Navy and the nation."
Gregg expressed similar feelings.
"The brave sailors and civilians aboard the U.S.S. Thresher made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our nation," he said in a press release. "This measure we introduced recognizes the courage and bravery these men demonstrated in risking their lives in the development of the United States Navy's submarine program, a program which has proven invaluable to the American military."
The Thresher, built at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, was commissioned in 1961 and underwent weapons tests, including on its torpedoes.
After the sub sank, the Navy investigated and determined that the most probable cause of the accident was a leak in its engine room because of corrosions in its pipes. This, in turn, could have caused electrical problems on the sub.
After the accident, the Navy established additional safety procedures, including the SUBSAFE program, which requires each submarine to pass a series of safety tests.
According to the press release, Sununu, Gregg and Maine's two senators will introduce legislation asking Army Secretary Thomas E. White to create a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring those who lost their lives on the Thresher as well as on all other nuclear subs that were lost at sea.
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
War Abroad, Congress Moves Forward On Domestic Agenda
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON - Though on the sidelines as the nation pursues its war against Iraq, Congress has positioned itself on the front lines of the government's domestic policy effort since war began two weeks ago.
While White House and Pentagon officials concentrate on shaping the U.S. military operation in Iraq, the House and Senate have acted recently on a slew of major issues, only some of which involve the war.
"Congress realistically does not have that much day-to-day engagement in the prosecution of the war, so they are doing what seems to be natural, which is to shift their focus to appropriations and domestic issue matters," said Jerome F. Climer, president of the Congressional Institute, which keeps track of Congress's work flow.
With the public and the president looking elsewhere, the pressure has been on Congress to hold down the fort on domestic policy, said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. This week, both chambers are working to churn out next year's budget resolution, as well as a proposed $74.7 billion wartime budget.
"They're trying to conduct business as usual, but it's very hard," Mr. Ornstein said. "Everybody has been distracted by this."
On Monday, a day that members rarely spend in Washington, the House put one of President Bush's key domestic priorities to a vote. House members ultimately killed a bill that would have provided medical workers or their families with federal benefits if they were injured, disabled or killed after receiving smallpox vaccinations.
Republican leaders had hoped to push the bill through the House without debate but were embarrassed when the bill, which needed the support of two-thirds of the House to pass, failed to get a simple majority.
That defeat was the latest in a series of bumps in the road for the Bush administration's domestic agenda. Last week, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to slice the president's proposed $726 billion tax cut in half.
And, on the day the president announced the start of the war, the Senate rejected a measure that would have included revenue from prospective Alaska oil drilling in next year's budget. Several key Republicans sided with Democrats to defeat the Bush-supported measure.
"The war produces a rally effect for the president in public opinion, but it seldom does anything to advance his domestic policy agenda," said Thomas Mann, a political expert at the Brookings Institution. In this case, with the president holding fast to his domestic goals despite his focus on the war, the administration is coming across some uneasiness within the congressional ranks, he said.
"This president has chosen to stick with an agenda that's basically a conservative Republican one," Mr. Mann said. "He's going to find the going a little tough with moderate Republicans and virtually unanimous dissent from Democrats."
Still some bills recently on Congress' menu have been considerably less divisive. Last week, the House overwhelmingly supported a bill designed to curb child abduction and exploitation. That measure rushed through Congress on the heels of the discovery of kidnapped Utah teenager Elizabeth Smart, who was missing for more than nine months.
There was time last week, too, to speed through the House a resolution "recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer" during the war in Iraq.
Mr. Mann said Congress simply is following its natural rhythms and routines. Since the initial bombings of Iraqi government buildings two weeks ago, members of Congress have introduced more than 300 bills and resolutions on scores of subjects.
"There are dozens and dozens of pieces of legislation that will be moving to the floor," Mr. Mann said. "Just because we're in a military engagement in Iraq, there's no reason not to proceed with any of those."
Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, said that, in fact, there has not been enough debate of domestic issues in the House. He blamed Republican leaders for stifling discussion on matters that may give them trouble, such as the president's tax cut and Social Security reform proposals.
"They don't let a lot of issues come to the floor," he said. "Debate is muffled."
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
Kerry Raises $7 Million In First Quarter
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign raised about $7 million in the first three months of this year, a figure likely to position him near the top of the Democratic fundraising heap.
Massachusetts was the leading contributor to his campaign, contributing $2.1 million.
Sen. Kerry's $7 million puts him just behind Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who announced on Tuesday that his campaign raised $7.4 million during the first three months of this year. None of the other seven Democratic candidates has yet released figures.
Sen. Kerry's total is added to roughly $3 million already in the Massachusetts Democrat's presidential campaign chest, the majority of which had been transferred from his Senate account. After spending nearly $2 million so far this year, the campaign can boast an on-hand cash total of slightly more than $8 million.
Some analysts who had viewed Sen. Kerry as the frontrunner for the Democratic nod were surprised that the senator failed to exceed Sen. Edwards last quarter.
"That's got to be of some level of concern," said Steven Weiss, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors campaign finances. "No frontrunner likes to be beat out in fundraising."
A Kerry campaign aide said the senator and his staff were impressed with Sen. Edwards' figures but stressed that Sen. Kerry is pleased with his own tally.
"We've raised more money, acquired more donors, put more in the bank and built a stronger political foundation than I thought would be possible 90 days ago," Jim Jordan, Sen. Kerry's campaign manager, said in a statement.
On his way to winning the 2000 Democratic presidential nod, Vice President Al Gore raised a record $8.9 million during the first quarter of 1999. George W. Bush led Republican candidates with $7.6 million, with roughly one-third of that total coming in on the last day of filing.
This year's candidates are working under new campaign finance rules, instituted last November, that double the amount of so-called "hard" dollars that individuals can donate to a federal candidate, to $2,000.
The new laws also bar campaigns from accepting "soft money" donations, or unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and labor unions.
The Supreme Court was expected to review the new law in the coming months, though a delay in a federal appeals court ruling on the matter has raised concern that the nation's highest court will be unable to hear the case this term.
On March 19, Kerry qualified for the federal matching fund system, which rewards candidates with federal dollars if they raise at least $5,000 in each of 20 states in amounts no greater than $250 per donor.
Sen. Kerry has not said yet whether he will apply for matching funds, which might bring in less money than he could raise without those dollars.
During his 2002 re-election campaign, Sen. Kerry raised $14.7 million, the 10th-highest total collected during that six-year period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The senator's closest opponent in that race, a Libertarian, raised less than $200,000.
Other Democratic campaigns were expected to release their fundraising figures in the coming days. Conventional wisdom is that none of the others will report totals as high as Kerry and Edwards, Mr. Weiss said.
Candidates must file their first-quarter financial reports with the Federal Election Commission by April 15.
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
Watching the Pall Give Way to Reality of the Situation
WASHINGTON—I received a phone call from a good friend nearly an hour after President Bush had appeared on television last Wednesday night and officially announced that yes, military strikes in Iraq had begun.
"Happy war!" my buddy shouted sardonically into the phone.
The start of the war and the tension-filled weeks that led up to it ignited a spark: the TVs went on, the protesters got louder and more passionate, the war supporters cheered Bush's decisive rhetoric as if he were Wyatt Earp setting out to round up outlaws. Passion on all sides of the issue dominated, and the sights and sounds of "shock and awe," which itself became a national buzz phrase overnight, gave the feeling that the allied attacks on Iraq were full speed ahead, and minor roadblocks weren't going to deter us from ousting Saddam Hussein with lightning speed.
A Senate press secretary on Capitol Hill sent me a link to a Web site in which internationally recognized symbols, such as a downed telephone wire with sparks around it indicating an electrical danger, were reinterpreted with darkly humored and more literal interpretations relative to destruction in Iraq. "And to think," my contact wrote along with the link, "they really thought it would be tough."
But I woke up this morning feeling that the full speed train had slowed, that the initial encouragement and optimism of a war that would end quickly is waning, and the reality of the situation is emerging.
There's a disconcerting pall in Washington now, the type that has slowly but surely weakened morale and cleared away all of the initial passion to reveal a numb, colder reality that yes, we are living life during wartime.
I haven't been getting the phone calls this week, the ones that sardonically joke about our strikes in the Middle East and result in verbal high fives about how quickly we're "kickin a-in Iraq." No, the phone calls now stick to things like, "Didja hear about that marine helicopter that went down? Man, I really felt for that soldier's mother on TV" and "So maybe it won't be so easy, eh?" It's a strange feeling, not easy to grasp, but one that is stifling morale more every day. Even my girlfriend--who had joined the steadfast ranks of the TV-glued for most of last week--this week could only manage a simple but undeniably wishful, "So, will it be over soon?"
On my way to Capitol Hill almost every day for the past month, I'd seen a man accosting everyone within a ten-foot radius with fiery rhetoric and angry denunciations of President Bush's foreign policy stance.
On the morning after the President's speech I walked in the man's direction to see if he was any more vehement now that war had begun. When I came close enough to hear what he was saying, he suddenly lurched forward and tagged my shoulder with a large, circular "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" sticker, the type you tend to see on every signpost and subway wall in Washington.
I recoiled in surprise, tore the sticker off and scowled at the man, asking him, "Hey, what are you doing? Get off me!" He relented quickly, touched my shoulder and said amid gritted teeth, "Brother, I'm sorry. I'm just pissed, man!"
Remembering that encounter, I went to the Hill this morning to find the angry stranger and walked next to him again, readying myself for another sticker strike. But he said nothing today, merely looking around Union Station, muttering "peace…peace…" and waving a large sign with the international peace symbol on it. It was clear to me that he, too, feels the pall.
It's not obvious, but it's in the air. The Senate press secretary does not have any more humorous Web sites for me, rather, messages about how he "just wanted to move on, already" and was in his office reading war intelligence reports and crafting statements for his boss about the casualties suffered by U.S. soldiers thus far.
Walking around the Capitol produces a similar effect: business is still going "as usual," but all initial encouragement over the supposed speed of the war has subsided into a sort of emotional limbo. "I don't know how I feel," said one press secretary I talked to this morning. "Somebody let the air out of this thing."
Yeah, reality did.
It's harder this week, much harder, to smile and to be optimistic. My mood had significantly relaxed after the initial strikes with the notion that we were moving forward, that Saddam Hussein was on the run and that this war would be wrapped up before my semester in Washington is finished at the end of April.
But I'm not so relaxed and not so optimistic today. As reality creeps in and the pall builds, "shock and awe" has become "shucks n' aww."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
Any Day Now
By Kim Forrest
WASHINGTON--My parents are sending me a gas mask.
The typical care package of cookies and extra sweaters has become a thing of the past. Phone calls from home are more urgent and more frequent. The color orange suddenly is not simply a color that makes my skin look green. Whenever a plane flies overhead, I look out my window and stare at the sky. When I stand on the underground platform of the Metro, my eyes wander, analyzing every inch of the station. What I'm looking for, I can't say. But I'm watching and waiting.
Who knew that living in the world's most powerful city, our nation's Capital, could make me feel so powerless?
They tell me it could happen any day now. What "it" will be, no one really knows, although everyone seems to have a theory. Chemical weapons, biological attacks, dirty bombs, weapons of mass destruction, thoughts that were once only found in my nightmares, have become potential realities. And as much as I put on my brave face and smile and laugh with my friends, deep down inside I can't help but feel fear.
The monsters that once spent the night under my bed on sleepless nights could suddenly be lurking around every corner.
All I know for sure right now is that we're at war. And watching the news day and night, I can see missiles and bombs exploding in Baghdad as though I am looking out my front door. If I had stayed at school this semester in rural Williamstown, Mass., I think I could be detached from it all, and the TV pictures flashing before me would just be of a faraway land, a place that had no bearing on me or my life. It would, I think, be like watching a movie.
Instead, though, I'm here. And those televised images, it turns out, mean so much more.
They mean that being in Washington, I'm at a greater risk than ever before; that I must be "vigilant," whatever that means:. that there is a "near certainty" of an attack. But no one can tell me where or when or what. No one can tell me that it's going to be okay either.
I am told that I have to live my life without fear, to go about my daily business. That means I should go to the Capitol, to the House and Senate office buildings, as I always do. Just grab my congressional press pass and be the tough reporter that I know I should be.
I watch reporters on television from Baghdad and Kuwait and am amazed at how they can pull it all together. As anxious as I am in Washington, I sometimes wonder how journalists courageous enough to be working in the Middle East during a war must feel. I know they've been through extensive training before they follow the action, but watching them often leaves me astounded.
Sometimes I think that I could have used some training before I came to Washington-training in how to be normal during a high alert, during a war; Training in how to be in control when I know that I can't.
In a city where a man on a tractor stuck in a pond brought traffic to a virtual shutdown, along with the fears he planted in the minds of many, I wonder what I can laugh off and when I should really be concerned.
A suspicious package was found the other day only blocks from where I work, and when I was told by my boss to go investigate, I dutifully complied but couldn't help wanting to run away.
But I didn't run.
As a girl who was often called a "scaredy-cat" by friends, who cried at horror movies, who hid under the covers during thunderstorms, sometimes I feel like I have something to prove by living in the eye of the storm, as they call it. And as tense as everything gets, I know that there's a reason I'm here.
I was talking the other day to a friend who expressed her fears about my studying in Washington
"You could come home any time you want, you know," she said. "You could go back to Williams and you would definitely be safe there. Why don't you just get out of there?"
I paused for just a second. "I can't," I said.
"Why not?" she asked, her voice rising.
And for the first time in a long time, I smiled for real. Among all the uncertainties about life nowadays, there was one thing I could say with confidence:
"Because there's no place I'd rather be."
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire.
Frank Moves Away From Anti-War Talk
By Scott Brooks
WASHINGTON – For Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who has been a vocal opponent of the upcoming war on Iraq, the time to speak out against the war has passed.
The New Bedford congressman said Tuesday that his anti-war rhetoric will cease now that President Bush has brought the nation to the eve of a war. Rep. Frank, who for months has criticized the administration for rushing to war, said he and fellow Democrats will shift their focus to other issues once the war begins.
"Once it starts, it's too late," he said. "I still think it's a mistake. It clearly can do no good. [But] saying we shouldn't go to war becomes irrelevant once we go to war."
Other lawmakers agreed that Congress would do best now to rally behind U.S. troops, who could launch an assault on Iraq as early as Wednesday night. In the Senate, legislators who have spent hours publicizing their opposition to the war, including Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA, moved on to other subjects on which to attack the president.
Less than 14 hours after President Bush issued his ultimatum, Sen. Kennedy took to the Senate floor to denounce the administration's budget proposal for next year, which does not include specific funds for a war with Iraq. The White House has been mum on the war's expected costs, though analysts have come up with estimates of the military effort alone that range from $40 billion-$90 billion.
While the Senate may be debating other matters, Kennedy spokesman Mike Spahn said Sen. Kennedy does not intend to change his message that a war against Iraq at this time is irresponsible. In recent months, Sen. Kennedy emerged as one of the most unequivocal opponents of President Bush's war policies. Earlier this year, the senator proposed a resolution that would have brought President Bush back to Congress for a second war vote.
"Sen. Kennedy has consistently spoken out about his desire to avoid war and his desire to see inspections work," Mr. Spahn said. "He's going to continue to speak out about the issues as they come up."
Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Kennedy said the war effort, and the rebuilding process that will follow, will cost the United States "hundreds of billions of dollars." That Congress is to review a budget without these figures, he said, is "inconceivable."
"This Republican budget is asking us to pretend that war is not on the horizon," he said. "The Senate of the United States cannot accept such a sham."
Sen. Kennedy also took aim at the Bush administration's proposed tax cuts, which he dismissed as nonsensical during wartime. That issue was also foremost on the mind of Rep. Frank, who said the tax cuts could have "terrible consequences."
Rep. Frank said the tax cuts could hurt Bristol County, where schools cannot afford the spending mandated under President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. The congressman also said that the New Bedford Housing Authority is lacking sufficient resources to meet its budget needs.
While the president's opponents in Congress refocus on domestic matters, critics of Congress have noted the national legislature's inactivity on the war issue. Last fall, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to allow President Bush to use military force in Iraq. Since then, the House has scarcely addressed the issue, and the Senate has been stalled by debate over judicial nominee Miguel Estrada.
"Congress wasn't sidelined. Congress sidelined itself," Rep. Frank declared. "Nobody did this to Congress. The Republican leadership decided they didn't want to have any discussion, except for that silliness about French fries. It was a conscious decision."
Anti-war activist Marlene Pollack, a history professor at Bristol Community College, said legislators should not be silenced by the start of war. She said she would like to see Rep. Frank continue to give voice to the concerns of his anti-war constituents.
"You're putting our soldiers in harm's way," she said. "It would seem to me that that doesn't change anything once the war begins. It's even worse."
Published in The New Bedford Standard Times, in Massachusetts.
States Could Get More Money to Help Put Rapists Behind Bars
WASHINGTON-- Fourteen years ago, Virginia resident Debbie Smith was brutally raped in the woods behind her home. Smith wouldn't learn her attacker's name or whereabouts for six and a half years - the time it took before the authorities tested her rape kit, which held critical DNA evidence gathered after her assault. Her attacker was already behind bars for another offense. But every day until then, Smith said she lived in fear.
She doesn't want rape victims to have to wait that long for closure again.
Smith's story helped spark legislation now moving through Congress that would give state and local police departments $400 million over five years to test rape kits. The bill would also provide $150 million to train forensic nurses and $50 million to train police officers on the proper collection and handling of DNA evidence. Another $10 million would go toward expanding the FBI's national DNA database.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who introduced the bill in the Senate last year and reintroduced it in January, said he "can't think of any other single piece of legislation that could pass that could as radically and profoundly impact issues of sexual assault and rape."
Biden said there is a massive backlog of rape kits sitting on crime lab shelves across the country, with some 500,000 kits still waiting to be tested. Rape victims are kept waiting for justice while rapists are free to strike again, said Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who introduced a similar bill, called the Debbie Smith Act, in the House last year. Congressman Mark Green, R-Wis., is sponsoring the bill this year and introduced it Tuesday.
The Senate last year unanimously passed Biden's bill, called the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act, but the House did not act. Biden and other supporters held a news conference Tuesday to rally colleagues to make the bill a top priority this session.
"It is almost unimaginable that here in the 21st century we would keep a rape kit on the shelf, unexamined," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said Tuesday as she urged Congress to act quickly. "This falls into the category of 'shame on us' if we don't finally act to make this tool available across our country to catch those who have terrorized women and to give peace of mind to people like Debbie Smith who have done so much to bring us to this point."
Lawmakers say that money is the only thing that stands in the way of processing the rape kits. DNA analysis can range from $500 to $1,500 per kit.
In Massachusetts, Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett said there isn't enough money to process all of the cases that come through his office. The bill would enable prosecutors to process more evidence and cross-reference DNA with an even broader national database, he said.
"This would give us the tools we need to do serious prosecution in serious cases," Blodgett said.
The bill is now under review by the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and is expected to gain bipartisan support.
Congressman Martin T. Meehan, D-Lowell, said he would support the legislation.
"We have a difficult enough time getting rape victims to come forward that when they do, we have to make sure the authorities know how to process the kits effectively," Meehan said.
Congressman Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., said he was "virtually certain" to support it but wanted to see how much the bill would cost taxpayers before pledging his vote.
"I want to see, when it gets to the floor, what the price tag is," Bradley said.
Lifetime Television has an on-line petition that people can sign to support the Debbie Smith Act. For more information, go to www.lifetimetv.com.
Published in The Lawrence Eagle Tribune, in Massachusetts.
Members of Congress Push for Stronger Legislation in Using DNA to Catch Rapists
WASHINGTON—Lawmakers introduced legislation Tuesday in the House designed to prosecute rapists more effectively by improving the use of DNA evidence collection.
The Debbie Smith Act, authored by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), would provide over $600 million to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA evidence collected in sexual assault cases but not tested or entered into the national database. Its companion bill, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003, authored by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), was introduced in January. Speaking at a meeting, lawmakers stressed that it is a lack of resources, not technology or ability, that has caused the backlog.
The money would be spent over the next five years to upgrade DNA analysis, train law enforcement officials and first responders in handling forensic evidence and treating sexual assault victims, and update the national DNA database.
"Despite past successes and the future potential of DNA, hundreds of thousands of rape kits sit in storage because law enforcement officials lack the funds or resources to test them," Biden said in a statement. The rape kits, which contain collected DNA evidence, are stored away, Biden said, while victims of sexual assault wait for justice, sometimes long past the statute of limitations, which for most states is seven years.
"Each of these kits represents a woman who was viciously attacked, and who may live in fear because her attacker might still be free," he continued. "We have the technology and the power to change all of that. We have an opportunity and an obligation to do a much better job of using DNA evidence to bring criminals to justice."
Biden said that DNA testing yields 99.9 percent accuracy, and that with the latest technology, only a drop of blood the size of a pinhead is needed for testing. "But it is useless," he cautioned, "if there is no money to test the evidence [that is collected]."
According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, a sexual assault occurs in the United States approximately every 82 seconds. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's most recent statistics show 458 reported forcible rapes in New Hampshire for 2001, according to the FBI website.
Maloney first introduced the legislation last year, after rape survivor Debbie Smith of Williamsburg, Va., testified at a Government Reform Committee hearing on DNA evidence. Smith's attacker was identified through such evidence.
"DNA is fresher than a fingerprint," Maloney said in a statement, reiterating the method's importance. "It does not forget and it can't be intimidated."
The legislation also has received considerable media support from the cable network Lifetime Television. According to executive vice president Meredith Wagner, nearly 80,000 people have signed Lifetime's on-line petition drive in support of the bills.
The legislative push coincides this week with End Violence Against Women Week.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is a co-sponsor of the legislation.
"This is a win-win issue," Sen. Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), another of the bill's co-sponsors, said at the hearing. "Once people understand what's at stake, there is simply no more argument."
Published in Foster's Daily Democrat, in New Hampshire.
