Category: Justin Hill
Senate Majority Leader to Push Shay’s Reform Bill to Senate Vote After Landmark Bill Passes the House
By Justin Hill
WASHINGTON, Feb. 14–Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-N.D.) said yesterday he will bring the campaign finance reform bill championed by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4th) to the Senate floor the minute he receives it from the House. Daschle spoke only hours after the House approved the controversial measure early yesterday morning.
“I was thrilled with the outcome of [the vote early yesterday morning],” Shays said later in the day. “I think the bill is something we can be proud of. We’re expecting no changes in the Senate. We will soon get a vote, and we expect it to pass overwhelmingly.”
The measure, co-sponsored by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.), cleared the House by a vote of 240-189 at about 2:30 A.M., after 16 hours of sometimes fierce debate. The next step is for the House to send the bill to the Senate for concurrence. The Senate approved a largely identical bill last year.
The House bill survived challenges in the form of two substitute bills and 12 “poison pill” amendments that House Republican leaders offered in an attempt to derail the legislation.
Shays had defied House Republican leaders last month when he garnered enough signatures on a discharge petition to force the legislation to a vote. Supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill contended that the amendments were designed to “gut” the measure or shatter the coalition formed in support of the most sweeping campaign finance reform since 1974.
“As soon as the bill comes back to the Senate, I will ask unanimous consent to bring it up here and, under a time agreement, to pass it and put it on the president’s desk,” Daschle said, flanked by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.).
The Shays-Meehan bill would ban unregulated “soft money” that corporations, labor unions and individuals can now contribute to national political parties. It would also ban the use of soft money to finance “issue ads,” by special interest groups during the 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary. It would permit limited soft money contributions to state and local parties. The measure would also increase the hard money contributions to individual candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 per election.
During the marathon debate on campaign finance, Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-6th) voted for one of the substitute bills that would have effectively killed the Shays-Meehan measure but later said that she had cast that vote mistakenly and intended to vote against the substitute.
Rep. Jim Maloney (D-5th) who is running for the 5th District seat against Johnson in a race caused by the state’s redistricting plan and loss of a congressional seat, expressed skepticism. “Rep. Johnson’s statement that she made a ‘mistake’ doesn’t pass the smell test,” he said. “It’s just not credible.”
David L. Boomer, Johnson’s campaign manager, shot back that Johnson expected Maloney’s reaction since “he has a history of running very negative campaigns.”
A filibuster could threaten the future of the House bill in the Senate, which passed a similar measure sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) last year by 59-41. Proponents would need 60 votes to cut off a filibuster and send the bill directly to President Bush. Many believe that in the wake of the Enron scandals, this is the best chance in years to bring about significant changes in campaign spending rules.
Opponents of the bill complain that the measure violates the First Amendment right of free speech and weakens political parties.
Published in The Hour, in Norwalk, Conn.
Republican Leadership Pushing to Defeat Shays’ Campaign Finance Reform Bill
By Justin Hill
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12--House Republican leaders have vowed to fight the campaign finance reform bill co-sponsored by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-4th) from becoming law after Shays bucked his party's leadership last month by forcing the bill to a House vote next week.
At a meeting with Republicans Wednesday, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) likened the coming vote on Shays's bill to "Armageddon", the final battle between good and evil, Shays said. An official at the meeting told the Associated Press that Hastert said to his colleagues that Republicans "might lose the House" if the bill passes.
"I think he's dead wrong," Shays said yesterday of the Speaker, adding that the Republicans and Democrats roughly raise the same amount of campaign money. "If [the bill] doesn't pass we will continue to see the abuses" in government caused by unregulated "soft" money, he said.
The House is scheduled to vote next Tuesday on the rule governing debate on the bill and to vote on the bill itself the following day. Under the rule that the House Rules Committee approved yesterday, the House would also debate and vote on a last-minute substitute sponsored by House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas).
A spokesman for Armey said that the legislation was "close to completion."
Hastert feels that Shays's bill would "enhance the power of special interests, especially Democratic special interests," said John Feehery, spokesman for the Speaker.
The Shays-Meehan bill would ban soft money donations which corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals can now make to political parties. It would also forbid independent interest groups from broadcasting political advertising in the period right before an election.
Shays said he was unsure if he has enough votes to pass his bill, which is similar to the McCain-Feingold measure the Senate approved last year. But many believe in the wake of the Enron scandals, this is the best chance in years to bring about the significant changes in campaign spending rules.
"It's hard to know how my colleagues will respond to various pressures," he said. "Each member will have to vote their conscience."
In addition to Armey's substitute, the House will also have to deal with another substitute bill that House Administration Committee chairman Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is offering. Shays and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), the co-sponsor of the bill, said they feared amendments that could either "gut the bill" or shatter the coalition that has formed in support of the bill.
"The Ney bill is an opportunity for members who don't want to vote for reform to pretend they are," Meehan said. "It's more to cover their butts" than to accomplish anything.
Last summer the House GOP leadership managed to shelve Shays's bill but last month Shays and campaign finance reform supporters forced the bill to the floor after securing 218 signatures -the necessary majority of all House members -on what is called a discharge petition.
A number of interest groups have been active in pushing for passage of real campaign finance reform.
"[We have been] mobilizing hundreds of groups across the country in favor of Shays-Meehan," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen. He said the non-profit group's members were sending 1,000 letters to Congressmen urging members to vote for Shays's bill.
For his part, Shays said, "I'm just trying to answer questions that people have about the bill."
Published in The Hour, in Norwalk, Conn.
Bush’s Budget Looks Good for Norwalk-Based Company as Maloney Eyes More Funds
By Justin Hill
WASHINGTON, Feb. 06--Rep. Jim Maloney (D-5th) is excited about the prospects for Norwalk-based Norden Systems under President George W. Bush's proposed increase in defense spending and said he will push to secure even more money for a Norden project.
Maloney, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that last year he helped increase federal funds for the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP), which is under contract with Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Co. Norden, a unit of Northrop Grumman, manufactures radars and employs 500 people.
MP-RTIP, which calls for development of a radar system on manned and unmanned surveillance airborne platforms, is "the single most important" item in the defense budget for Norden, said company spokeswoman Fran DiMeglio.
Maloney agreed, calling the program's surveillance equipment "highly effective." "We have made the case we should build more of them. The president's budget starts where we left offáAnd that's the good news for Norwalk."
The Defense Department's budget, announced Monday, calls for $1 million more for the program in fiscal year 2003 than the $79 million it received for the same period in the current year.
"It will definitely be a benefit" to Norden, DiMeglio said.
The budget calls for a $97.2 million cut in research and development for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), for which Norden makes radar. But according to DiMeglio, the cut will not affect Norden's continued production of the radar system.
Maloney said the Defense Department's current budget does not provide adequate funds for Army Guard and Reserves. But next year, the prospects for more funds are improved because of the larger proposed defense budget.
Stratford-based Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is another company in Fairfield County that would benefit from Bush's defense budget. The county ranks first in Connecticut in defense contracts awarded per capita, according to the Connecticut Dept. of Economic and Community Development in Hartford.
The budget calls for a $128.9 million increase in fiscal year 2003 to develop the Comanche helicopter. Sikorsky has a contract to work on the helicopter's airframe and avionics with its parent company United Technologies Corp. and Boeing Co. in Philadelphia.
Bush's proposal also calls for the manufacture of 27 Black Hawk helicopters-two more than he originally proposed a year ago. Sikorsky is the prime contractor for the aircraft. Maloney said he helped push the number to 35 helicopters in the final budget.
"The president's a little bit ahead [of where we were last year]," Maloney said. "[This year] we start up a notch."
Published in The Hour, in Norwalk, Conn.
Bush’s Proposal to Increase Defense Spending Could Lead to Big Bucks for Fairfield County’s Defense Industry
By Justin Hill
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30--President George W. Bush's proposal to increase defense spending could lead to big bucks for Fairfield County's defense industry.
"I think it's very important for the employees and the economy of the region," said Mark Prislone, chief economist at the Connecticut Dept. of Economic and Community Development in Hartford. "Since Connecticut does have a strong defense industry in its economic base, the consensus is that the Bush budget will only help Connecticut employers and their workers."
Fairfield County ranks first in the state in defense contracts awarded per capita, according to Prislone. In fiscal year 2000, Fairfield County was awarded $847 million in defense contracts. Connecticut received about $2.2 billion, about 2 percent of the Defense Department's of total contracts with all 50 states.
Bush announced his proposal during his State of the Union speech on Tuesday. His budget will be announced on Monday.
"We will see the benefit of [Bush's defense proposal] to the Connecticut economy," Rep. Jim Maloney (D.-Conn.) said Tuesday. "I think the defense budget will be a plus for Connecticut."
Many defense companies are located in Connecticut, including Stratford-based helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and Norden Systems, which is headquartered in Norwalk.
"It's anticipated that the company is going to benefit. We are anticipating good things to come," said Fran DiMeglio, spokeswoman for Norden Systems, which employs about 500. The company, which makes radars and is a unit of the electronics systems sector of Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman, is one of the largest defense companies in Norwalk. The business does $100-500 million in sales, Prislone said.
Bush's defense spending proposal "certainly will benefit the economy," said Katie Levinson, spokeswoman for Rep. Christopher Shays (R.-Conn.).
Defense spending has been sluggish in Connecticut in the past few years, Prislone said. But a decade ago, when the state was more dependent than it is today on defense production, "the Connecticut economy was hit hard by the last recession. Since then, he said, "we had diversification of our industries," and Connecticut is now less dependent on defense spending.
In his State of the Union speech, Bush promised to spend whatever amount it takes for the United States to defend itself.
"It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month, over $30 million a day, and we must be prepared for future operations," the president said. "Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely."
Connecticut's congressional delegation hailed the president's call for an increase in defense spending, but some called for Bush to keep long-term objectives in mind.
"I think defense spending falls quite literally in the category of emergency spending," Maloney said. "The issue is whether we have a plan in the long term to return to fiscal responsibility. We always have to be flexible for emergencies, but that gives us no right to abandon fiscal responsibility."
Published in The Hour, in Norwalk, Conn.
Shay’s Bill Receives Enough Signatures to Send Campaign Finance Reform Bill to the Floor
By Justin Hill
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24-Rep. Christopher Shays's campaign finance reform bill garnered the final signatures it needed on a petition yesterday to send the bill to a vote on the House floor over the Republican leadership's objections.
"This is a very exciting day, and I think it will lead to some good for the country," Shays said at a news conference at which he was flanked by his partner in campaign finance reform, Martin Meehan (D.-Mass), House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D.-Mo.) and Russell Feingold (D.-Wis.), a co-sponsor of the Senate-passed version of the bill. "Campaign finance reform will finally get a fair vote," Shays said.
The discharge petition, which forces the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001 to a House vote, received its 218th signature after two Republicans, Reps. Charles Bass of New Hampshire and Tom Petri of Wisconsin, and two Democrats, Reps. Richard Neal of Massachusetts and Corrine Brown of Florida, signed it. Since 1967, only 11 discharge petitions have received the necessary majority of all House members to force a bill to a vote despite the opposition of the majority leadership.
The bill, which Shays introduced in January 2001, would ban most unregulated "soft money," was shelved in July when the House rejected the Republican leadership's proposed rules for the debate and Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.) said he would not voluntarily reschedule the bill.
"The public's tolerance for this soft-money system has grown thin," Meehan said. "With each revelation and each additional soft money that pours in, it is becoming all the more difficult to defend our current campaign finance system or stand behind opposing systems that do little or nothing."
Shays was cautiously optimistic about yesterday's events, acknowledging that the bill does not necessarily have enough votes to pass in the House. He said he noticed that people in his district wanted campaign finance reform when he attended community meetings, where most of the time people wanted to talk about Enron and campaign finance reform more than they wished to discuss terrorism.
Republican leaders said they would provide a fair vote for Shays's bill. "We want to deal with the issue as expeditiously as possible and provide a fair forum for it to be considered on the House floor," Terry Holt, a spokesman for Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, told the Associated Press..
Opponents of the bill say it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
The Senate passed its version of the bill last year by 59-41.
"Now, for the first time in a long time," Gephardt said, "we have a golden opportunity to make Shays-Meehan the law of the United States." The minority leader thanked Shays for his work in getting the signatures.
Twenty Republicans, 197 Democrats and one Independent signed the petition.
Published in The Hour, in Norwalk, Conn.
Group Asks Lieberman to Remove Himself From Enron Probe
By Justin Hill
WASHINGTON, Jan. 22--A Virginia-based watchdog group is urging Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) to recuse himself from any investigation into the probe of Enron Corp.'s bankruptcy by the senate committee he chairs because the senator received contributions from one of the failed energy company's creditors.
In a letter dated Jan. 15, the president of the National Legal and Policy Center Peter Flaherty asked the senator to remove himself from any investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which is expected to hold a hearing Thursday to inquire whether federal agencies could have done more to prevent Enron's collapse. Lieberman received $112,546 from Citigroup Inc. from 1997-2002, making the company the senator's largest contributor for the past five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
"In order to assure the public of the integrity of the Senate investigation and to avoid the appearance of a double standard, I hope you agree with me that recusing yourself is the only appropriate action for you to take," Flaherty wrote.
Enron doled out $35,000 last year to the New Democrat Network, a political action committee founded by Lieberman in 1996, according to Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the senator. Enron's embattled auditing firm Arthur Andersen gave $12,500 to the political action committee last year, Phillips said.
"[Lieberman] rejected the call to recuse himself," said Leslie Phillips, a spokeswoman for the senator. "He's been very tough on Enron. He intends to conduct a very aggressive, through and thoughtful investigation. áWe are not looking into anything having to do with Citigroup. á He has no official connection to [the New Democrat Network]."
Lieberman announced earlier this year that investigations into the collapse of Enron will be the one of the committee's priorities in 2002.
Meanwhile Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), who is one of the largest recipients of Enron campaign contributions, removed himself from the Congressional investigations of the Houston-based company yesterday as Congressional investigators were expected to issue subpoenas for four senior officials of Arthur Andersen last night.
Questions about possible conflicts of interest between Lieberman and the Enron investigation surfaced after reports showed that Lieberman's former chief of staff Michael Lewan contacted Lieberman's office in June while he was working as lobbyist for Enron.
"Nothing inappropriate happened there. á It's not going to affect any conduct at the hearing. á I'm committed to conducting an investigation here that's comprehensive, aggressive and fair," Lieberman said.
Lewan, who served as the senator's top aide from 1989-1992and remains friends with Lieberman, contributed $1,000 to Lieberman in 1998, according to Federal Election Commission records.
"Nothing that was discussed with the Senator's staff had anything to do with the bankruptcy [of Enron]," said Lewan. "It was about legislative issues."
Published in The Hour, in Norwalk, Conn.
