Category: Daniel Lauridsen
Congress Left Out in the Cold in Global Warming Debate
EPA
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
4-26-07
WASHINGTON, April 26 –The global warming debate is heating up on Capitol Hill, but Congress isn’t the branch turning the knob.
On April 2, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by refusing to regulate motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists generally believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions, from motor vehicles and other sources, are largely responsible for global climate change.
With a climate of increasing urgency nationwide, states like Massachusetts and California have taken the lead in reducing climate change-related emissions at a regional level, while the Supreme Court decision was a blow to the Bush administration’s stance that the EPA could not regulate carbon dioxide. But where punches have been thrown in the hottest political battle in the country, the legislative branch has found itself left out in the cold.
U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., recognized that he and fellow legislators have fallen behind state and regional efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions, but he applauded recent Massachusetts efforts, such as the Supreme Court case in which the state served as the lead plaintiff and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a compact among northeastern states.
Both, said Sen. Kerry, have set precedents for the federal government to follow.
A study released in April by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group lists Massachusetts among the lowest carbon-emitting states, but state officials admit that the Bay State does not currently have an official system in place to track and measure carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles.
While Sen. Kerry is pushing his own climate change legislation through the Senate, he and many other Democrats fault the Bush administration for stalling on what they argue is an urgent crisis. But they express hope that the Supreme Court’s decision will send a clear message that climate change is a federal issue.
“It’s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush administration” Mr. Kerry said. “The White House now must go back and take a fresh look at regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The time to act is now.”
U.S. Rep. John W. Olver, D-Amherst, also cited the Bush administration as the key obstacle in enacting an effective climate change overhaul.
“We just happen to have an anti-scientist in the White House at this moment,” Mr. Olver said. “Any new administration will simply have to affirm that global warming and climate change are occurring.”
Sen. Kerry and Rep. Olver seem likely to be disappointed. Testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on April 24, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson repeatedly declined to say when and how his agency would comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Mr. Olver, who has his own climate change bill pending in the House, said he thinks the climate change debate “absolutely” will pick up steam after the 2008 presidential election, but he said he would like to see much more done before President Bush leaves office.
Mr. Olver said that while the President would never sign a bill that would put strict restrictions on emissions levels, Mr. Bush might agree to a “cap-and-trade” program, which would allow companies with emissions levels below a fixed amount to “sell” their excess pollution allowances to companies with levels above the fixed amount, thus rewarding more environmentally friendly companies.
“He, while he is president, will not go beyond cap-and-trade, but might get pushed into cap-and-trade some time within the next 18 months,” Mr. Olver said.
And though he isn’t sure what kind of action the Supreme Court’s decision will push the president into taking, Mr. Olver said it will supply some added pressure – something Congress was unable to accomplish.
“EPA is not going to take initiative until the administration decides that they must do so because the political fallout from not doing so is too great,” he said.
But environmental groups in Massachusetts are worried that political pressure may come too late.
“Congress has really dropped the ball on this,” said Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations at Mass Audubon, the largest conservation organization in New England.
Mr. Clarke said that while separate regional efforts are being taken by groups of states across the country, the industries largely responsible for the increasing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions –the electric generating industry, whose plants generate the most carbon dioxide in the United States, and the automobile industry – will not make the necessary changes to reduce emissions until they have one federal standard to regulate carbon emissions in plants and motor vehicles instead of one for each state, and he sees the Supreme Court’s decision as the first step toward that end.
The decision “will force the automobile industry and the electric generating industry to put pressure on the Bush administration to put out uniform regulations regarding CO2 emissions and miles per gallon,” Mr. Clarke said.
Ken Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who is studying air pollution and climate change policy, said that while the automobile industry will not be happy about the decision, it’s still too early to see how it will be affected specifically.
“They’re already facing a huge amount of challenges,” Mr. Green said. “I can’t imagine they’re hungry for another one on their plate, but at this point we’re sort of in limbo waiting on EPA.”
Mr. Green will be holding a conference for lawyers and officials involved in the Massachusetts case in the coming weeks to discuss how broad the impacts of the case will be and “to give us the good, the bad and the ugly of the whole thing.” He said it was up to EPA to decide how it will regulate emissions, and until it acts, it remains unclear how the industry will be affected.
“We’re really in the early days of the ramifications of this decision,” he said. “The point of the suit was to force federal implementation by EPA, so it should have little effect on the states other than to move agencies that way.”
Uniform regulations also would be necessary in regulating pollution between regions. For instance, much of the pollution in the Northeast floats over from the industrial midwest, making it difficult for states in New England to regulate regional emissions without a federal standard.
Mr. Clarke also promised that while President Bush failed to follow through on campaign pledges to curb climate change, the next president will be held to a much tighter standard.
“The writing is on the wall that the next administration will be taking up the campaign promise that Bush made originally that he would regulate CO2 emissions,” he added.
But for now, state and regional efforts continue to set the tone on capping emissions.
In January, Massachusetts joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, committing the Commonwealth to a multi-state effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and tackle global climate change by developing cap-and-trade programs across the Northeast.
Although the effort started in 2005, then-Gov. Mitt Romney decided not to sign on. But Gov. Deval Patrick did on Jan. 18, making Massachusetts the ninth state to join the effort.
At the signing, Mr. Patrick pledged to use the proceeds of the sale of emissions allowances to fund an aggressive program of energy savings for households and industry.
“Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time,” he said. “On this day, we want everyone to know that Massachusetts will not stand on the sidelines.”
Bob Keough, spokesman for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said that although the state had stood on the sidelines of the initiative for the two previous years, it has always been working to improve its environment and regulate its carbon emissions.
“That was a decision made by the prior administrations which had concerns, which were legitimate, about the potential cost impact” of the regional compact, he said, adding that Mr. Patrick has concluded that “we will be able to keep price increases down.”
“The Carbon Boom,” which the U.S. Public Interest Research Group released April 12, found that while U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption grew from almost 5 billion metric tons to almost 5.9 billion metric tons between 1990 and 2004, an increase of 18 percent, there were no increases in emissions in Delaware, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.
“Many states are not waiting for federal legislation to combat climate change,” Mr. Kerry said. “Lots of states, including Massachusetts through RGGI [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative], have already taken it upon themselves to address climate change.”
But such regional efforts could be severely affected by federal legislation, and current bills proposed in Congress feature a potpourri of possible emissions requirements, some much tougher than others.
Mr. Kerry’s bill, which he introduced Feb. 1 with U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, calls for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 65 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.
Mr. Olver’s bill, introduced with Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., in the last two congressional sessions and reintroduced on the eve of President Bush’s State of the Union speech this year, calls for a 75 percent reduction of emissions in the next 50 years.
Other Senate bills have been introduced by Sens. John S. McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., and by Sens. Barbara L. Boxer, D-Calif., and Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and other House legislation has been introduced by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was started in 2003 when then-New York Gov. George E. Pataki sent letters to the 11 governors from Maine to Maryland, inviting participation in a cooperative, regional effort.
In December 2005, seven states – Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont – agreed to participate, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island signing on this year.
It will help states reach previously set goals, such as those established by the New England governors and the Eastern Canadian premiers in a Climate Change Action Plan issued in August 2001, which calls for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Mr. Patrick also renewed that effort when he signed the regional initiative.
Under the initiative, annual emissions of CO2 in Massachusetts from power plants of 25 megawatts and larger will be capped at approximately 26 million tons annually statewide from 2009 through 2014, then reduced incrementally by 2.5 percent per year for the next four years.
On the West Coast, the governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington have a similar agreement known as the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative.
On top of this, many states, including Massachusetts, have adopted the California energy emissions standards, which require that every new car sold emit 30 percent less carbon dioxide, 20 percent fewer toxic pollutants and up to 20 percent fewer smog-causing pollutants than the established federal standards.
“California has taken the lead on emissions standards, and they will continue to do so,” Mr. Keough said, adding that Massachusetts would not have the legal authority by itself to regulate emissions standards. “It has to follow California’s lead,” he said.
But when the federal government will do so – and what the effects of such legislation would be – is yet to be determined.
Mr. Kerry said: “It’s still too early to say what would happen to those efforts if federal legislation passes, because we don’t know what that would look like. But the important thing is that individual states are acting.”
He added, “I am proud that Gov. Patrick decided to have Massachusetts rejoin RGGI and tackle greenhouse gas emissions. It was the right decision for our environment, our economy and our security.”
Mr. Keough said requirements from the initiative would ultimately supersede current plant regulations.
“Massachusetts has led the way,” Mr. Kerry said. “The Supreme Court has spoken, Americans are making themselves heard and we’re going to keep fighting until a serious solution to climate change is enacted.”
-30-
Kerry and Gingrich Debate Climate Change Solutions
DISCUSSION
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
4-10-07
WASHINGTON, April 10 – U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and former Speaker of the House Newt L. Gingrich disagreed Tuesday over strategies for combating global climate change..
Their debate took place on Capitol Hill under the auspices of the New York University’s John Brademas Center.
While Mr. Kerry argued that climate change is a pressing issue that requires congressional attention and regulatory legislation, Mr. Gingrich said the free market can solve the problem through incentives for companies that reduce emissions.
“Economic growth really matters,” Mr. Gingrich said.
But Mr. Kerry argued that the crisis was too severe to give the market time to solve the problem and that immediate action nationwide would result only from legislative action.
In the first half of the 21sts Century, Mr. Kerry said, global warming could cause problems on a scale “equal to great wars and economic depression.”
“That’s why this is urgent,” he said. “That’s why you can’t say, ‘Let’s let the market respond.’ That’s like saying let’s let Barry Bonds go investigate steroids or Enron regulate pensions.”
Mr. Gingrich, who was speaker from 1995 to 1999, said he was in “clear agreement that human activity has helped increase global warming” but
did not think the problem required government regulation.
A plan that does not encourage China and India to reduce emissions would not be adequate in solving the global crisis, Mr. Gingrich said.
“We’re not going to coerce these countries into a regulatory regime,” he said. “You ask them to choose between science and economic growth, they’re both going to pick economic growth.”
But Mr. Kerry said China has said it is willing to work toward a solution. “They now are aware it’s a major problem,” he said. “They’re concerned. They are going green now. They are doing green building in many ways more than we are.”
Mr. Gingrich said incentives, or prizes, for companies that met certain emissions levels were he best way to let a free market solve the crisis of climate change on its own without imposing regulations that might slow the economy.
“We can move very rapidly if we’re moving there as consumers, he said. “Those of you that have cell phones are living proof. Those of you that have BlackBerries are living proof.”
Mr. Gingrich did not contest the urgency of the issue, saying, “We’re arguing whether the market can move faster than bureaucracy,” which he said it can “if you incentivize it.”
But Mr. Kerry argued that the companies leading the way in reducing emissions, and those that would be most affected by legislation, would prefer legislation to incentives.
“They all say we need an economy-wide [emissions] cap in order to make clear the rules of the road,” he said, stressing the need for everyone to follow the same standards instead of simply rewarding the ones who meet certain marks. “That’s the only way the market will respond,” he said.
“I start with economics to get to the same end,” Mr. Gingrich said, but Mr. Kerry argued that his own solution is just as driven by economic needs.
“Whoever develops the best technology is going to be the winner,” Mr. Kerry said. “That’s the American economy at its best.” He added, “There is no environmental crisis that has ever been solved voluntarily.”
Mr. Gingrich said Mr. Kerry’s solution would create pain great enough to cause companies to adapt, whereas his own solution would create pleasure great enough that “to get the pleasure they’ll build the plant.” Mr. Gingrich acknowledged that Mr. Kerry’s solution was one answer but argued that his answer was more creative and would be more effective, especially among conservatives with economy-first philosophies.
“This is a very challenging thing to do if you’re a conservative,” Mr. Gingrich said. “The environment has been a powerful emotional tool for bigger government and higher taxes. I think there has to be a green conservative.”
At one point Mr. Gingrich held up a copy of Mr. Kerry’s new book, This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future, and said, “I would agree with about 60 percent of this book.”
“We’ve been through catastrophes,” he said. “I think what we need to have is optimism. The human race has an enormous ability to adapt.”
-30-
Meehan Office Loses Staff, Presses on Until July
OFFICE
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
4-04-07
WASHINGTON, April 4— The House Democrats’ majority will be one vote smaller this summer and fall after U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan steps down to become chancellor of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. But residents of Mr. Meehan’s 5th District won’t be without the services that members of Congress traditionally offer.
Mr. Meehan will vacate his seat on July 1, largely, he says, to be able to spend more time with his family. Until his successor is sworn in, probably by late October, Clerk of the House Lorraine C. Miller will, in effect, run the office. And the office staff will continue to provide constituency services, under the clerk’s supervision.
During that time, the office will function normally, with some staff staying on to manage constituent services.
“Generally what happens is staff are asked to stay, if they so choose, during that transition period,” said Mark C. Miller, associate professor of government and director of the Law and Society Program at Clark University. “A lot of activity generally would continue.”
He added: “A big part of all congressional offices is serving as a liaison between citizens and the federal government,” a function that should not be affected, though the legislative processes would cease.
“Obviously, staffers can’t go to the floor and vote,” noted John Santore, a spokesman for the House Rules Committee, in an e-mail message.
As Mr. Miller put it, “The legislative function might suffer, but the constituency service, which is really the key, will continue.”
The last special election in Massachusetts took place in 2001, after U.S. Rep. Joe Moakley died in office, and U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Boston) replaced him a few months later.
Kevin Ryan, chief of staff for Mr. Lynch, had been Mr. Moakley’s chief of staff, stayed on through the interim and reapplied for his job once Mr. Lynch was elected.
Mr. Ryan said that during the time the office was without a member, he worked very closely with the clerk of the House in answering to constituents.
“We were not allowed to take any position on an issue,” Mr. Ryan recalled. “We definitely had constituents calling, and we were there, frankly, to do what we could do. Any time we had any kind of question, I would sit down with the clerk and say, ‘This is what we got.’ ”
A spokeswoman for the clerk added: “It works just as when the member was there, as sort of acting as a liaison.”
The Clerk of the House is an official elected by the majority party of the House at the start of each Congress and handles all legislation, sending bills to committee when they are introduced and certifying the passage of laws. The clerk also manages the office and staff of any deceased, resigned, or expelled member until a successor is elected.
Neither the Massachusetts delegation nor the Democratic Party will view the temporary loss of a vote as a major setback, according to David L. Schaefer, a professor of political science at the College of the Holy Cross.
“It’s unlikely that the absence of one Democrat is going to alter the outcome” on the House floor, Mr. Schaefer said. “It would be different if a senator’s seat was vacant.”
Mr. Ryan said that when a new member is appointed, he expects the rest of the Massachusetts delegation to be very forthcoming, offering assistance in adjusting to Washington.
“They’ll need it,” he said, adding that the new member will have to get up on the issues very quickly while hiring a full new staff to run the office. “It’s a difficult situation with a member coming in because he’ll be coming in the middle of a session,” he said. “The fortunate thing is he’s walking into a great delegation.”
But before Meehan walks out, he and his staff are still focused on getting as much done as possible, which, aside from cataloging files from Mr. Meehan’s seven-plus terms in office, includes passing an overhaul of lobbying issues in the House, examining the war in Iraq in the Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which he chairs, and moving to a hearing his bill to repeal the military’s policy on gay servicemen and women.
To meet these goals, he’ll need the help of his staff, many of whom are already seeking other jobs.
“People are eager and determined to figure out the congressman’s priorities,” Meehan’s legislative aide Kate Lynch said, “and to go out with a bang.”
Ms. Lynch, whose family is from Massachusetts, will be leaving the office shortly to work on the campaign of Niki Tsongas, the Lowell Democrat and widow of former Sen. Paul Tsongas, who will be running for Mr. Meehan’s vacant seat.
“That seat is very heavily Democratic,” Mr. Miller said. “Probably the winner of the Democratic primary would have a very good shot at winning the general election”
This, he added, would make it easier for members of the Meehan staff to keep their jobs long-term.
“He has a very, very good staff that has an excellent reputation, so I would assume that they would have numerous job opportunities,” Mr. Miller added.
Peter Lau, Mr. Meehan’s district director in Lowell, has already signed on to manage the Tsongas campaign.
Mr. Meehan’s press secretary, Bryan DeAngelis, a Lowell native and Boston College alumnus, will leave this month to manage press in New Hampshire for the 2008 presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn.
His chief of staff, Robert Letteney, left earlier this year to work for U.S. Rep. John W. Olver, D-Amherst, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. He changed jobs, he said, because of his deep interest in transportation policy.
These moves have left Mr. Meehan running at half-staff.
“Everyone’s jumping ship,” Mr. Meehan joked, adding that he’s been forced to look for temporary staff to fill vacancies long enough to keep his office running until July.
That may not be much of a problem. “Washington is not short of people eager to have jobs as congressional staffers, even if only for a few months,” Mr. Schaefer said.
“In an ideal world, a member would want a full staff,” Mr. Miller said, “but we never live in an ideal world; so members will function quite well in a less than ideal situation.”
“He’s always sad to see people go, but he’s always happy when folks go on, especially to continue with their education,” said Chris Hickling, Mr. Meehan’s legislative director in Washington.
But most of the office is geared to the present. “For us it’s still the same everyday hours that we’re used to working, just as though he was going to be here for another 15 years,” Mr. Hickling said. “There’s no slowing down.”
Which is fine with Mr. Meehan.
“I suppose in many ways I’m a lame duck,” he said, “but there’s plenty for me to keep working on.” But, he allowed,, “I’m a tired lame duck.”
###
Olver Calls for More Funding for Intercity and National Rails
AMTRAK
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
3-28-07
WASHINGTON, March 28 – U.S. Rep. John W. Olver (D-Amherst) Wednesday criticized the Bush administration’s proposed funds for Amtrak, saying the president “would allow Amtrak to wither on the vine.”
In an Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development hearing, Mr. Olver said an increase in population has brought about congestion problems that the country couldn’t fix with only roads and airways.
The 30 largest metropolitan areas now account for almost 45 percent of the country’s total population, said Mr. Olver, who chairs the subcommittee, and this boom has caused “congested highways and airspace, increased travel delays and environmental degradation.”
“The challenges created by this growth are clear,” he said. “It should also be clear that we cannot build our way out of these mobility problems with new roads and airspace alone.”
The subcommittee heard from Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer Alex Kummant and Federal Railroad Administration chief Joseph H. Boardman, both of whom who said that while Amtrak has made improvements greater funding is still needed.
“We see the demand for intercity rail routes,” Mr. Kummant said. “Our statements are following the demand. We have an aging fleet.”
Mr. Olver expressed his hope not only for sufficient funds for Amtrak to keep current rails running and begin fixing backlog problems on the Northeast Corridor, but also enough to begin the first stages of implementing a high-speed intercity rail system in several corridors nationwide.
“With a modest capital investment, we could implement higher-speed rail in a number of corridors in this country,” he said, adding that the administration has failed to provide “the necessary investments for a robust passenger rail system.”
The Bush administration’s budget proposes $900 million for Amtrak next year, a $400 million decrease from this year. Two weeks ago, the Department of Transportation’s inspector general testified before the subcommittee that Amtrak could not function at that level of spending.
But Mr. Olver’s office said he was confident Amtrak would receive more. The office estimated that the final amount would be $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion but said it was entirely too early in the allocation process to say for sure because the subcommittee will not mark up its part of the budget until May or June.
“Each year the committee has funded Amtrak well above what the administration has proposed,” Olver said. “We will do the best we can.”
Amtrak plans to put its first high-speed railways on the West Coast between Los Angeles and Oakland and in the Northeast between Washington and Boston, but Mr. Olver has also worked to get the Boston-Springfield-New Haven route included as a high-speed rail planning route, and he said he would like to upgrade commuter rail service between Worcester and Boston.
Mr. Olver said trains between Worcester and Boston currently run at about 30-35 miles per hour, taking about one hour and 20 minutes, and he would like to see the commute time drop to one hour.
“There are big, big improvements needed on the Northeast Corridor,” he said.
U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Worcester) has also worked to increase Worcester-to-Boston commuter rail service. Michael Mershon, Mr.McGovern’s press secretary, called this route a “primary focus” for his boss.
“There are a myriad of issues with that,” he said. “This is something that’s been an issue in Worcester for a long, long time.” He added that Lt. Gov. Tim Murray has done “a lot of heavy lifting” on increasing service for that route.
“I am concerned with making sure that we have passenger rail as part of the balanced transportation system,” Mr. Olver said, “and I would like to see us get over the hump and finally do something in the high-speed rail area.”
While the allocated funds will not be nearly enough to implement high-speed railways across the country, Mr. Olver and Mr. Kummant said they were confident they could begin laying the groundwork for such a system.
“I think we can get there in steps,” Mr. Kummant said, citing Amtrak’s ability to run trains at 80 miles per hour before moving to 120 and 200 miles per hour, like the true high-speed rails of Europe and Japan. He said these systems got to where they are now using similar steps.
Mr. Olver said Western European governments invested more than $100 billion in their intercity rail systems throughout the 1980s, while Japan continues to invest billions in high-speed rail infrastructure.
“With the current budgetary climate in the United States, we could never invest the capital needed to build the types of dedicated intercity high-speed rail systems found in the rest of the world,” he said.
But he said a little overspending now on modest track improvements would make major track improvements – required to make the switch to high-speed trains – much easier and less expensive in the future.
“We need to move this debate forward,” Mr. Boardman said. “We need to have national rail in this country.”
###
Kerry, Markey, Others Call for Action on Climate Change Legislation
CLIMATE
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
3-21-07
WASHINGTON, March 21 – U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Medford) joined members of Congress from across the country Tuesday to call for legislation to slow climate change and tighten energy emissions standards.
The legislators gathered to address a conservationist rally timed for the first day of spring. Basking in weather fair enough for short sleeves, a few hundred demonstrators turned out on the Capitol’s west lawn for “Climate Crisis Action Day,” including three in full-body polar bear suits and dozens carrying signs that read “Cool the planet, save the Arctic.”
“We deserve a government that accepts science and facts,” Mr. Kerry said, garnering the loudest applause of the day.
Mr. Markey, whom House Speaker Nancy P. Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently named chairman of the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said he will use his new position to bring climate change legislation to the congressional forefront.
“What a difference a day makes,” he said, referring to the 2006 elections in which the Democrats took control of Congress. He added that a year ago, under Republican leadership, global warming was not considered a major issue.
“This is an incredible moment in American political history,” he said. “Either we are going to solve this problem or we will destroy the planet. The time to act is now, and you are the change.”
Mr. Markey joked that as a 30-year member of both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, he has been going to hearings on climate change for 60 years.
He assured the crowd that his experience has led him to one conclusion about President Bush’s position on climate change: “On every one of those issues, you are right, and he is wrong,” he said.
He added, “What a difference it would have made, ladies and gentlemen, if instead of George Bush, John Kerry was now sitting down in the White House.”
Sens. Barbara L. Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who co-authored what they called the most progressive climate change bill in the Senate, spoke on behalf of their bill.
“The government of America belongs to all the people and not just big oil, big coal and special-interest organizations,” Mr. Sanders said. “We can turn our country and the entire world in a brand new direction. We can do that.”
He added, “This is the challenge of our lifetimes. Let’s go forward together.”
Ms. Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee,, also referred to the change in party leadership in Congress, saying that while former Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) adamantly denied the existence of global warming, she has introduced it as a prominent issue in the committee and has invited former Vice President Al Gore to speak to the committee Wednesday.
Mr. Kerry, who has characterized the climate change bill he co-authored with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) as a more realistic approach than the Boxer-Sanders bill, acknowledged that scientists he has spoken with recently are now calling for more drastic changes in emissions requirements.
“This has been a long journey for all of us,” Mr. Kerry said. “Let’s get this job done.”
-30-
Congressional Pig Book Thinner This Year
MASSPIGS
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
3-7-07
WASHINGTON –Congress isn’t bringing home the bacon like it used to, according to a new report released Wednesday.
The report, the 17th annual “Pig Book,” a compilation of pork-barrel projects published by the non-profit organization Citizens Against Government Waste, was noticeably thinner than previous years, something the organization attributes to the fact that Congress passed only two of the 11 appropriations bills last year. Citizens Against Government Waste is a non-partisan, non-profit group that tracks government spending.
The group identified at $7.8 million directed to Massachusetts last year, a sharp drop from the $116 million last year.
The spending bills for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security were signed into law, but the remaining appropriations were wrapped into a single bill that cleared Congress after congressional leaders agreed to a moratorium on earmarks, expenditures inappropriately tucked into a larger bill.
The 2007 Pig Book identifies 2,658 pork projects, a 73 percent drop from last year, at a cost of $13.2 billion, a 55 percent decline from last year, in the Defense and Homeland Security appropriations acts for 2007.
“Although the Pig Book is leaner this year, there is still much to chew through,” Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz said. “While taxpayers should celebrate a reduction in the number and cost of pork-barrel projects, there is still much work to be done to ensure members of Congress do not return to their piggish ways in the future.”
Although the organization recognizes that not all earmarks are bad, it says that pork-barrel spending, corrupt lobbyists and questionable campaign fundraising tactics are connected to the increasingly commonplace practice of earmarking.
“President Bush says get rid of half the earmarks, but I don’t know how you do that. It’s like saying get rid of half the drug dealers ,” U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.
The Pig Book identified six pieces of pork legislation in Massachusetts in 2007, including $2.2 million for the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston and $1.6 million for the Center for Advanced Sensor and Communication Antennas at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
Because the defense and homeland security budgets are two of the most difficult to break down by state, this year’s Pig Book did not provide state pork rankings, but Massachusetts has typically been near the bottom of the list of biggest porkers, ranking 46th last year and 39th the year before that.
-30-
Meehan Tries to Repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
MEEHAN
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
2-28-07
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 – U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) re-introduced legislation Wednesday that would repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow persons dishonorably discharged due to sexual orientation to reapply for service.
U.S. Rep. Chris R. Shays (R-Conn.) joined Mr. Meehan in introducing the bill, which is supported by 109 co-sponsors, including two other Republicans.
Mr. Meehan, chair of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, first introduced the bill last year, but it died in committee. But with Democrats now controlling Congress, Mr. Meehan is confident the bill will get a hearing, which he said he hopes will result in resounding support by both parties.
“I believe strongly that having a hearing on this issue is absolutely critical,” Mr. Meehan said, adding that once the debate starts, he thinks the overwhelming majority will vote in favor of passing the bill.
Mr. Meehan said the policy is not only discriminatory, but that it also costs the military large amounts of money in discharging otherwise capable recruits. He pointed to a 2006 University of California study that found that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ cost taxpayers $363.8 million between1994 and 2003.
Mr. Meehan called the study more accurate than a 2005 Government Accountability Organization report that said the cost over the same period of time was about $190.5 million.
“The more people learn about how bad this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is, the more they learn about how negatively it impacts our national security and our ability to do our jobs, then the more members of Congress who perhaps initially were against lifting this ban or for this policy will change their minds, just like generals and military officials and the American public have,” he said.
“Americans are very fair-minded,” Mr. Shays added. “I think [Congress] will begin to be pressured by the American people to just get it done.”
Retired Sgt. Eric Alva, a Marine Corps veteran, Purple Heart recipient and the first service member injured in the current war in Iraq, came out publicly as a gay man shortly before the press conference. The Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for homosexuals, announced that Mr. Alva will serve as a national spokesperson in the effort to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’
“A person in this country is usually judged by the way they do a job,” Mr. Alva said, adding that the military’s policy is the exception. He said he sought an end to “the hatred that still exists amongst ourselves, even in within the ranks of the military.”
Mr. Meehan said that the current policy has led the military to lower recruiting standards, offering waivers to recruits without high school diplomas and with criminal records.
Retired Army Brig. Gen. Pat Foote, who served for 30 years, called the policy “reprehensible and outrageous,” adding that “Army gay and lesbian personnel must perform their duties with loyalty, selfless service and personal courage, but the institution itself does not treat them with respect or honor.”
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network spokesperson C. Dixon Osburn said, “There is no excuse for sacrificing security in the name of discrimination.”
According to data released Wednesday by the network, the armed forces fire an average of two to three service members daily under the policy.
“The facts in this case are overwhelming,” Mr. Meehan said. “Beyond a reasonable doubt, this policy has failed.”
-30-
Massachusetts Receives $57.7 Million for Homeless from HUD
GRANTS
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
2-21-07
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21– Massachusetts received $57.5 million Tuesday in grants for 2006 homeless programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a 6.8 percent increase from the previous year.
Of nearly $1.4 billion awarded in grants for local homeless programs nationwide, Massachusetts’ share was the eighth highest amount, and of all districts statewide, the city and county of Worcester received the second highest amount, about $5.2 million. Only the city of Boston, with about $19 million, received more.
Grants for programs that provide services to the homeless were awarded through a competition in which organizations nationwide apply for funds, while grants for emergency shelter programs were allocated through a formula, HUD spokesperson Brian Sullivan said.
In Massachusetts, the department awarded about $5 million to Worcester County for the homeless programs, and $205,173 in emergency shelter grants.
Almost $2 million of the Worcester County funds will be distributed by the Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance, a homeless advocacy group based in Worcester.
“We’re thrilled with the announcement that each of the projects that we asked to be funded were funded,” said Grace Carmark, the executive director of Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance. “We’re very pleased.”
Carmark said the alliance, which submits grant application for Worcester County, worked on consolidated applications for 21 different programs receiving funds throughout the region, 18 of which are renewal projects for existing homeless service and shelter programs. She said Worcester County received a slightly higher amount of funding for these programs this year than it did last year.
Two new programs receiving funds this year include a northern Worcester County sober housing program for chronically homeless individuals operated by the South Middlesex Opportunity Council and the Dismas House program, which holds eight to 10 beds for ex-offenders and their families, Carmark said.
Sullivan said the department carefully determines which programs to grant funding.
“There’s a number of rating and ranking factors we look at in scoring those applications,” he said.
Worcester Assistant City Manager Julie Jacobson said, “These are clearly critical programs and initiatives that would not be possible without the level of commitment that HUD has made.”
HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson said in a press release, “Whether it’s a single man living with a mental illness or a family struggling to give their children a roof over their heads, this funding is quite literally saving lives.”
Jacobson said, “We definitely have a need here, throughout the city, as well as in the county. Every dollar is critical.”
-30-
Students Support Kennedy’s New Student Loan Legislation
KENNEDY
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
2-13-07
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13–Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., introduced legislation Tuesday that would aim to boost college scholarships and student loans without requesting additional funds from taxpayers.
Mr. Kennedy, whose Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will hold a hearing Friday on college affordability, has made several proposals recently to improve aid for college students and overhaul the student loan industry.
“Higher college prices are shutting more students than ever out of a college education, yet billions of dollars are wasted every year in taxpayer subsidies that line the pockets of the student lending world,” Mr. Kennedy said at a press conference, flanked on either side by college students.
Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who joined Kennedy as a sponsor of the bill, added: “Higher education is essential to success in a competitive global economy. Those across the country deserve as affordable an education as possible.”
Mr. Kennedy argued that by encouraging more schools to participate in programs in which students receive money directly from the federal government, his bill would cut out the “middleman” of banks who look to profit from student loans.
“It’s time to inject some real competition into the loan programs, so that they help students, not banks,” he said, adding that student loans are currently the second most profitable business for banks, behind credit cards.
Currently, there are two federal student loan programs to help students with financial need: the Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Mr. Kennedy’s bill endorses the Direct Loan Program, which he said cuts out the “middleman” of banks who look to profit on student loans.
In the Federal Family Education Loan Program, private and non-profit lenders compete to provide these funds. Supporters of this program argue that the direct lending program has cost taxpayers $16 billion since 1997 and continues to add to the national debt.
Mr. Kennedy, however, argued that if all loans had been made through the direct lending program, the federal government would have saved $30 billion since its inception in 1994.
“Clearly, the direct loan program is the better program,” he said.
Furthermore, Mr. Kennedy said, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that his new bill, which encourages the use of the direct loan program, would save $13 billion, of which $10 billion could be invested into additional Pell grant scholarships and graduate fellowships.
Mr. Kennedy said that in November President Bush stated he would give $51 billion to the Pell grant program. “We’re going to give him the opportunity to sign off on it,” he said.
Kennedy’s bill has drawn some bipartisan support, including Mr. Smith of Oregon and Rep. Thomas Petri of Wisconsin, a senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.
Although he said he had no indication whether the Bush Administration would support the bill, Mr. Kennedy said, “They haven’t in the past, and I really don’t have any indication that they will. They should.”
Students from the Student Public Interest Research Groups, independent state-based student organizations that work to solve public interest problems, spoke after Kennedy gave his initial address. A group of about 200 students nationwide came to Washington Feb. 9 to lend their support on a variety of legislation ranging from global warming to ethics reform.
“It’s a great opportunity,” Michelina Ciruolo, a Salem State University student, said after the press conference. “It’s a really good cause.”
Students from the University of Oregon, the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point also spoke at the press conference.
“We like to believe we’re a competitive society, but we don’t in regards to student loans, and the ones who are paying the piper on the student loans are the students, and that is wrong,” Mr. Kennedy said. “It’s outrageous in this day and age that 400,000 qualified students each year don’t attend college because they can’t afford it.”
He added that the cost of college has tripled in the last 20 years.
-30-
Static Massachusetts Delegation Helped Swing Democratic Victory in Congress
Massachusetts
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Priyanka Dayal and Danny Lauridsen
Boston University Washington News Service
Feb. 9, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 –Massachusetts congressmen used their excess green to add a little more blue on the map during the last election.
The 10 U.S. House members from Massachusetts, all Democrats, had their seats functionally secured well before last November’s election. But they played a pivotal role in the Democrats’ sweep of Congress last fall by raising funds for and contributing heavily to the campaigns of candidates around the country.
No matter how large their victories and how high their popularity, public officials need to raise funds to ward off possible challengers and prove themselves as party loyalists. But especially in 2006, the Massachusetts delegation reached into their pockets to help give the House majority to the Democrats.
“They have been great team players in helping the Democrats win the majority in November,” said Jennifer Crider, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “And given their leadership roles in Congress, we hope they will continue to do so. They have been an important part of the team.”
In a Congress whose partisanship seems to grow stronger each year, the Democratic campaign committee, which relies on well-funded and safe Democratic incumbents to garner support for candidates in tight races across the country, views Massachusetts as a major asset to the party.
Five of the 10 representatives from the Bay State ran unopposed, and the other five out-raised their opponents by more than $500,000, each winning with at least 65 percent of the vote.
Each member raised at least $650,000 for the 2006 election, and four of them raised more than $1 million. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Newton, topped his colleagues with more than $1.8 million, according to end-of-the-year reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Of the 435 members in the House of Representatives, members from Massachusetts have among the largest sums of money in the bank. Only eight House members have more than $2 million, and three of them are from Massachusetts, including Martin T. Meehan of Lowell, whose $5.1 million is by far the biggest war chest of any U.S. congressman, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group that tracks money in politics.
Edward J. Markey of Medford has the second highest amount, with $2.4 million, and William D. Delahunt of Quincy ranks seventh in the nation with about $2 million.
David Donnelly, national campaigns director for Public Campaign Action Fund, an advocacy group that favors limiting the influence of special interest money in American politics, said the stakes were high for both Democrats and Republicans in 2006.
“There was a lot of pressure on [Democratic] candidates who did not have competitive races – like the ones in Massachusetts – to raise money and give it to” the Democratic campaign committee, Mr. Donnelly said.
The committee charges dues from all the Democrats in the House, but the fees vary depending on committee assignments and seniority. Members of the Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees, for example, pay more than members of other, low-profile committees. Committee chairmen also pay more than those without gavels.
In addition to dues, Massachusetts congressmen contributed more than $2 million to the Democratic campaign committee, which filters the money to congressional campaigns around the country. Each delegate contributed $100,000 or more.
The pressure to raise funds for Democratic candidates nationwide also came from liberal blogs. Mydd.com, for instance, ran an online “use it or lose it” campaign, asking incumbent Democrats to use their funds for the good of the party, Mr. Donnelly said.
Michael Mershon, spokesman for U.S. Rep. James P. McGovern of Worcester, said because Mr. McGovern ran unopposed last fall, he sought to raise money for other candidates rather than promoting himself.
“Not having an opponent for Jim’s congressional race certainly freed up his time and energy,” Mr. Mershon said. “He was more able to help other candidates out.”
Mr. Meehan, who gave more than $109,000 to the Democratic campaign committee last year, in addition to more than $15,000 in dues, said through a spokesman that he is already “working to keep the momentum moving toward the 2008 congressional and presidential elections.”
He added: “I look forward to doing my part in those key races to keep the congressional majority and return a Democrat to the White House.”
Mr. Meehan’s hefty bank account has fueled speculation that he plans to run for Senate if veterans Edward M. Kennedy or John F. Kerry were to retire. Mr. Kerry, who ran for president in 2004, announced last month that he would not seek the presidency in 2008 but would instead stand for re-election to the Senate. Mr. Kennedy won an easy re-election to his seat last fall.
“For a while, many members of the House were raising money to stockpile it for a future run in the Senate,” Mr. Donnelly said. “The speculation has generally surfaced around Marty Meehan and Barney Frank.”
But after Mr. Kerry announced he would stay in the Senate, Mr. Frank said he decided he would not run for Senate in 2008. Instead, he has donated $250,000 from his campaign war chest to the Democratic campaign committee.
Mr. Meehan, in a statement released by his office, said: “I plan to run for re-election in 2008. I will use the funds available to me in my campaign account for that election and any future races.”
Mr. Meehan is rumored to be eyeing a position as chancellor at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, a move that also would shake things up in an otherwise static delegation.
But Mr. Meehan’s spokesman, Bryan DeAngelis, said, “Right now he has not been offered the job. They asked to sit down and interview him, but he has not applied for the job. He plans on seeking re-election.”
Mr. Meehan, who does not accept donations from political action committees, also has been at the forefront of efforts to overhaul campaign finance laws. He introduced legislation last month that would increase the amount of public funds available to presidential candidates to encourage them not to run privately-funded campaigns.
Another possible shake-up in the Bay State is the redistricting after the 2010 Census, in which Massachusetts could lose a House seat. And western Massachusetts, with its dwindling population, could be the most affected. A switch to nine House seats would pit two incumbents against each other, giving the candidate with the larger war chest a distinct advantage.
Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said it is important for candidates to plan for future races even when they are running unopposed.
“You don’t want to look weak or out of touch because that might prompt someone else to come challenge you next time,” he said. “Even the most secure politicians always have some fear that they’re going to be challenged by a well-financed opponent sometime down the road, and to prepare they have to amass this war chest.”
Ritsch pointed out that it took about $1 million to win a House race in 2006, meaning that with the money Mr. Meehan has in the bank right now, he could win five.
Josef Blumenfeld, a global public relations and branding consultant in Natick, Mass. who has worked in politics, said that in a state as politically predictable as Massachusetts, candidates who have had a high profile in past election cycles would have a big advantage in the wake of any kind of political upheaval.
“These are products,” he said. “They’re brands. There’s a fundraising advantage in being the incumbent from purely a self-preservation perspective.”
Blumenfeld compared campaign fundraising in seemingly locked-up races to large corporations that advertise to consumers who are already likely to buy their products.
One thing candidates must figure out while campaigning in non-races is where to place the fine line between looking out for the party and looking out for the future. Blumenfeld said organizations like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or the DCCC, often argue that candidates in locked-up races are not giving enough to the party as a whole.
“There were murmurings from the DCCC that Democrats up here should open up their war chest a little more, but I think they came through in the end,” he said.
In the case of the Massachusetts delegation, being a team player last year extended not only to other nationwide elections, but also to the race for governor. Mr. Meehan contributed $125,000 to help carry Democratic Gov. Deval L. Patrick to victory last November.
In every move they make, though, candidates are considering which alliances will benefit them the most in their ambitions for a higher office, experts said.
“Raising money and contributing it to the party has also become one barometer used by members of both parties to assess if someone is serious enough to be a committee chair,” Mr. Donnelly said.
As Ritsch pointed out, “The campaign really never stops.”
-30-
