Category: Kelly Field
Campaign Finance Bill Faces Pitched Battle
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Feb. 08–A political showdown over campaign finance reform that the Republican Speaker of the House has likened to Armageddon-the final battle between good and evil-will take place next week and Congressman Marty Meehan, D-Lowell is relishing the prospect.
Meehan, a co-author of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, said he was delighted that the House will finally vote on legislation to curb the influence of money in politics. If passed, the bill would ban the soft money contributions that corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals now make to national political parties and bar interest groups from running certain political or issue ads within 60 days of an election.
Earlier this week, House Speaker Dennis Hastert reportedly called the bill a “life-or-death” issue for the Republicans, telling his colleagues that they “might lose the House” if the bill passes.
Republicans have long warned that the bill will place them at a fundraising disadvantage, since it would leave labor unions and other traditional Democratic supporters free to spend large amounts on campaigns. This week, Hastert added the specter of Minority Leader Richard Gephardt becoming Speaker of the House to harden the opposition.
Republicans plan to introduce an alternative bill to siphon away support for the Shays-Meehan legislation, as well as several “poison pill” amendments that could make passage in the Senate more difficult. The Senate did pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform measure last year. But Meehan said if too many changes are made to the bill and the Shays-Meehan legislation is forced into conference committee it could be the death of the legislation.
A big threat to the Shays-Meehan legislation is a bill offered by Congressmen Bob Ney, R-OH and Albert Wynn, D-MD, who have argued that Shays-Meehan infringes on the Constitutional rights of average citizens. The Ney-Wynn bill would “cap” contributions to national parties at $75,000 and prevent both sides from using soft money to fund “issue ads.”
“We need campaign finance reform that is constitutional and balanced,” Ney said.
The US Chamber of Commerce has echoed this criticism, saying Shays-Meehan would deny individuals their constitutional right to participate in the political process through campaign contributions. “Shays-Meehan stifles citizens’ voices, and then hands politicians the megaphone,” said Bill Miller, chamber Vice President and political director.
Critics of Ney-Wynn say it is not real reform, since it would still allow individuals and corporations to donate $500,000 total–$75,000 to each party’s four national committees-in efforts to influence the political process.
“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 propose real changes.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) also plans to offer a legislative alternative. His spokesman said Thursday that the legislation was “close to completion.”
In addition, Republicans are considering amendments to Shays-Meehan that would raise the contribution limits, require a citizenship test or photo IDs for voter registration, require that 50 percent of a candidates’ money comes from his home state, or restrict unions’ ability to spend dues money on political campaigns.
Asked about the potential for passage of his bill against this opposition, Meehan said he was “cautiously optimistic” that the bill would pass. His confidence came, he said from the fact that Enron has heightened public awareness about the ways money buys access. In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of discussion about whether Enron had too much control over President Bush’s energy policy.
“We have a historic opportunity to do something about this,” he said. “The Enron scandal has resulted in most Americans demanding that something be done.”
Meehan predicted that the public will be “angry” with those members “who took Enron money and wouldn’t vote to clean up the system.”
But, he said, “we do not underestimate the strength of our opposition.”
Added Congressman Chris Shays, R-Connecticut, “It’s hard to know how my colleagues will respond to various pressures. Each member will have to vote their conscience.”
Enron and its executives gave $1.7 million in soft money in 2000 to political candidates and parties, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Under the Ney-Wynn bill they could donate 76 percent of that amount, or $1.3 million, the analysis said.
In the final days leading up to the vote, both sides are working to mobilize their supporters. The League of Women Voters is faxing and emailing Congressman and doing phone banking, according to legislative director Lloyd Leonard, and the Public Citizen group has sent 1,000 letters to Congressmen urging them to vote in favor of Shays-Meehan.
“(Shays-Meehan) represents a gigantic step forward in getting rid of special interests in our political system,” said Public Citizen Director Frank Clemente.
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
Local Congressmen React to State of Union Address
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29--Ominously warning that "thousands of killers are spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs set to go off without warning," President Bush in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night prepared the nation for increased spending on homeland security and the war in Afghanistan, saying "Our war against terrorism is only beginning."
In a speech that featured patriotic rhetoric and emotional appeals, the President proposed the largest increase in defense spending in a decade, vowing to spend whatever it takes for the U.S. to defend itself.
"While the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high: whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay it," he said.
But Bush's speech-which outlined "three great goals": winning the war, protecting the homeland and reviving the economy - did not neglect domestic issues. In the second half of his speech, Bush pledged to combat recession, saying that his economic security plan could be "summed up in one word: jobs." For the recently unemployed, he supported extended unemployment benefits and credits for health care coverage.
He also touted his education bill, praising both Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) for their bipartisan efforts in passing the bill.
"The folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't quite believe (that Kennedy and I had reached agreement), but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results," he said.
Judd said in a prepared statement that he appreciated Bush's "kind acknowledgement of my efforts that developed bipartisan proposals such as the education bill."
In his speech, Bush announced plans to improve Head Start and early childhood development programs and to recruit new teachers. The proposals mirrored those offered by Kennedy, who said he looks forward to working with Bush "to improve the quality of early education for children before they arrive at school."
Bipartisanship was a major theme in Bush's speech, as well as in the Democratic response delivered by House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) after the State of the Union. Echoing sentiments expressed by the president, Gephardt said "Now is not a time for finger-pointing or politics as usual·.We need to put partisanship aside and work together to solve the problems that face us." This spirit of solidarity could be felt at the State of the Union, said Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH).
"It seemed like an equal number of Democrats and Republicans were applauding his initiatives," he said.
Bush also tapped the national surge in community spirit by proposing that every American commit two years to community service and announcing the creation of the "USA Freedom Corps", an expansion of the Clinton AmeriCorps program.
As for Enron, Bush skirted the issue. He did not mention Enron by name, instead offering only oblique commentary on the collapse of the energy company. He said that corporate America must be held accountable and asked Congress to enact new safeguards for 401 (k) and pension plans.
The speech drew praise from both parties, with many Democrats saying that they wholeheartedly backed the President's plans for the war. But they were less enthusiastic about Bush's domestic agenda and tax cuts.
Congressman Marty Meehan (D-5th), described the speech as "strong and thoughtful," and said he is optimistic that Congress will "resist the urge to play election year games," and extend the spirit of "respect and bipartisanship" it has shown in the war to domestic issues. But he said he was disappointed that Bush did not call for the passage of campaign finance reform, which he has co-sponsored in the House.
"I think he did miss an opportunity in failing to mention the need for campaign finance reform," he said.
Meehan applauded the president's plans to fund a prescription drug benefit and to move forward with a patient's bill of rights, now stalled in the Senate.
Congressman John Tierney (D-6th) was even more critical, calling Bush's economic presentation "weak" and saying the speech "was very short on details."
"As always, the devil is in the details. He didn't say how he intends to pay for all these things," he said.
In a statement Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-7th) said: "All Democrats are locked arm and arm with the President in this war against terrorism-our nation's number one priority. But we don't want to be in hand to hand combat with the President over the environment, jobs, health care, welfare, energy policy, social security and Medicare," said Markey.
He likened Bush's approach to the economy to Enron's approach to business, saying that both "cover mounting debt with clever accounting." He said it was time to explore the long-term economic implications of an "irresponsible fiscal policy" including massive tax cuts.
Kennedy in a statement commended Bush's "leadership on the war front," and agreed that "our first order of business must be the economy and restoring jobs." But he endorsed Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's economic stimulus plan over Bush's, which, he said, offered "irresponsible tax breaks for special interests and the wealthy."
Kennedy also said Bush's prescription drug benefit offered "inadequate resources for a responsible plan," and proposed a broader benefit that would cover a wider income range.
"I support the President on the war front, and I'm ready to work with him to meet the urgent challenges on the home front," Kennedy said.
New Hampshire's Republican Senators were more enthusiastic. Congressman Bob Smith strongly endorsed Bush's three-pronged plan, saying his goals would be "vital to the prosperity of New Hampshire and the nation."
Like Bush, Smith argued in favor of the tax cut, saying it would spur economic growth and provide more jobs."
Smith, who recently returned from a visit to Afghanistan, also backed Bush's plans to raise salaries for men and women in the armed forces and to replace worn and outdated equipment. He also said that he was pleased with Bush's proposal to offer a prescription drug benefit to seniors.
New Hampshire Representative John Sununu (R-1st) agreed with Smith that it would be unwise to postpone the tax cut, as Senator Kennedy has suggested. Overriding last year's legislation, he said, would "undermine consumer confidence in policymakers, and only make the recession worse."
Sununu also chastised the Senate for failing to pass legislation last session on energy issues and economic stimulus, saying that delaying "action on these bills as a political tactic is simply wrong."
Sununu said that Bush's response to the Enron collapse was adequate. Sununu said he did wish that Bush had addressed special education and veteran's health care reform in the speech. But his colleague Bass said he was confident that there would be "not only a significant increase in special education funding but a thorough reauthorization of special education which will make it work better" during this session of Congress.
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
Congressional Panel Begins Enron Hearings
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24--Speaking in a soft southern accent, David Duncan declined yesterday to answer a congressional panel's questions about the destruction of documents at his auditing firm, saying his lawyer had advised him to remain silent.
Duncan, the recently fired Arthur Andersen partner accused of ordering the shredding of Enron-related documents, appeared tense in his hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations yesterday, the first House hearing into Enron's collapse.
Charles Bass (R-2nd NH), a subcommittee member, said in an opening statement that he was both "disturbed" and "alarmed" by the shredding of e-mail and other documents by Anderson employees.
"This hearing and other aspects of the investigation will be a sad process for the thousands of people whose lives were shattered by the collapse of Enron," he said.
Scores of Enron employees lost their life savings in the Enron collapse, while the company's chief executives sold their stock in advance and walked away with millions.
Edward Markey (D-8th MA), who is not a member of the subcommittee and was therefore not allowed to participate in the hearing, circulated a statement at the hearing blaming "ill-advised" securities fraud law for directly contributing "to a rising tide of accounting failures, culminating in the Enron-Arthur Anderson fiasco." The law limits companies' liability for security fraud, protecting Arthur Andersen to some degree even if a court finds it guilty, he said
"The types of internal checks and balances that a healthy concern about litigation risk used to create within each accounting firm have been undermined," he said. On Wednesday, Markey introduced legislation that he says would help redress this problem. The bill would, among other things, require auditors to retain copies of all documents generated during the course of an audit for four years and establish criminal penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully destroying such documents. It would also tighten liability standards to hold accountants liable in securities fraud cases.
Subcommittee chairman James C. Greenwood (R-Pa) said Duncan's refusal to testify will hamper the work of the committee. After Duncan cited the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination, Greenwood urged him to reconsider, saying: "Mr. Duncan, Enron robbed the bank, Arthur Andersen provided the getaway car, and they say you were at the wheel."
In earlier interviews with the subcommittee, Duncan has said that he was simply following orders from Andersen counsel Nancy Temple, who sent an e-mail on Oct. 12 reminding employees of the company's document retention policy.
But C.E. Andrews, an Andersen partner who appeared after Duncan on behalf of of Andersen chief executive officer Joseph Berardino, said Duncan broke company policy when he ordered the shredding. Dorsey L. Baskin, managing director of Andersen's professional standards group, also fingered Duncan, saying he "organized an expedited effort to shred or otherwise dispose of Enron documents" before consulting anyone in the firm or outside legal counsel.
The committee also asked Temple why she waited until Nov. 9-well after the start of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation-to send a second e-mail admonishing employees to retain important documents. She responded that the chain of command put Duncan in charge of Enron documents. The finger-pointing by all three Enron executives prompted Cliff Stearns (R-Fla) to ask, "Is Mr. Duncan being made a scapegoat here this morning?"
Yesterday's hearing was the first of many House hearings into Enron's collapse. The full Energy and Commerce Committee will meet in two weeks to examine Enron's accounting practices and consider new accounting legislation.
Other committees with Massachusetts and New Hampshire members of Congress are the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, on which John Kerry (D-MA) sits, and the House Government Reform Committee, on which John Tierney (D-MA 6th) serves.
Neither Tierney or Kerry received any donations from Enron in the past decade. Bass received $2,000 between 1995 and 1997, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Bass will not return the money, as some lawmakers have done, because "the contributions were made well in advance of Enron's current situation and are not at all relevant to Enron's current situation," his press secretary, Sally Tibbetts, said. Markey, who received $8,500 from Enron between 1989 and 2000, will donate the money to a charity. David Moulton, his chief of staff, said that Markey "wants to ensure that this donation will help the workers who were devastated by the company's collapse."
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
Campaign Finance Reform Gets Votes It Needs
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24-Two area Congressmen helped give the campaign finance reform bill the push it needed to make it to the House floor yesterday. Both New Hampshire Republican Charles Bass (2nd) and Massachusetts Democrat Richard Neal (2nd) signed a discharge petition to force a vote on the bill.
Bass signed the petition after meeting with House Speaker Dennis Hastert yesterday to encourage the Speaker to consider the bill under regular procedures. Hastert refused.
Bass and Neal were joined by Wisconsin Republican Tom Petri and Florida Democrat Corrinne Brown and) in bringing the total number of signatures to the required 218. Brown had already pledged her vote, and Neal, who generally opposes the use of the discharge petition, had long promised to be the 218th vote, if needed.
"The American people deserve a full debate about how campaigns are financed," Neal said as he signed the petition.
House supporters have been working since July to collect the 218 signatures required to compel a vote. In all, 20 Republicans bucked their party's leadership to sign the petition.
"The speaker laid down the challenge for us last July," co-sponsor Marty Meehan (D-5th) said at a press conference yesterday. "The challenge was to get 218 signatures for a discharge petition to bring campaign finance reform to the House floor under a fair rule."
Meehan said the collapse of Enron Corp. heightened public awareness of the power of money in politics, causing their "tolerance for this soft-money system" to grow thin. Enron, its employees and its political action committee donated more than $5.77 million to campaigns over the past 12 years, much of it in unregulated, unlimited "soft money."
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a a campaign finance reform group, agreed, saying, "The Enron scandal has returned the nation's attention to just how dangerous the campaign finance system in Washington is and how essential it is to reform this system."
If passed, the bill would institute a virtual ban on soft money and prevent certain "issue" ads by interest groups from running in the last 60 days of a campaign. The Senate last year passed a somewhat more stringent companion bill.
The Sierra Club heralded the completion of the petition, saying that current law allows oil and natural gas interests to dictate environmental policy.
"We believe there is a strong link between campaign contributions from polluting industries and environmental attacks," said political director Margaret Conway, citing President Bush's advocacy of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to drilling as an example.
Campaign finance reform is opposed by the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who say a ban on issue ads would violate their constitutional right to free speech. The AFL-CIO spent about $9.5 million on issue ads in the 2000 elections, and the Chamber of Commerce spent about $5.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
Enron Renews Interest In Campaign Finance
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Jan. 23--With members of Congress rushing to return campaign contributions they received from Enron Corp., the authors of a perennial bill to ban "soft-money" contributions say they're confident that this will be their year.
Rep. Marty Meehan (D-5th), co-sponsor of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, said the Enron debacle has reinvigorated his cause by renewing the debate on influence peddling in Washington. Enron was one of the nation's biggest political contributors, giving more than $5.77 million to campaigns over the past 12 years, much of it in unregulated, unlimited soft money.
Critics say that Enron and powerful auditing agencies like Arthur Andersen "bought" access to the administration and Congress, using their campaign contributions to achieve electricity deregulation, lax auditing standards and corporate tax breaks.
"Enron was a classic reminder of how soft money buys access and undermines public confidence in democracy," Meehan said.
Enron "put a human face" on the bill, said Jeff Cronin, a campaign finance reform advocate with Common Cause. "It showed that influence-peddling isn't a victimless crime."
Though the Senate approved a similar bill last year, the Shays-Meehan measure has stalled in the House, where Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has refused to consider the bill unless he is compelled to by a discharge petition signed by an absolute majority of the House. The petition is now only three signatures shy of the 218 it needs to force a vote, with Rep.Corrinne Brown (D-FL) citing the Enron case as she added her name to the list of signers.
Hastert conceded yesterday that the bill's supporters are likely to reach their goal. He also indicated that he wouldn't resort to extraordinary measures to block the petition effort. "I think eventually it's going to happen," he said in an Associated Press interview. "Nobody is going to suborn the rules of the House."
Meehan said he expects to receive the remaining signatures "within" a week, pointing to 10 members who have supported campaign finance reform in the past and are now on the fence. One of these members is Congressman Charles Bass (R-N.H.), who has said he would sign the petition if the Speaker refused to bring the bill to the floor under the regular order.
"I plan to meet soon with [Hastert] and urge him to bring the bill to the floor for a fair vote," Bass said. "But I am not ruling out signing the discharge petition."
Bass is the only New Hampshire member to support the bill, and one of only 19 House Republicans to do so. All of the Massachusetts members have signed the discharge petition except Democrat Richard E. Neal, who has committed to being the 218th signatory if only two more signatures can be obtained. Neal, like Bass, opposes the use of discharge petitions, said William Tranghese, Neal's press secretary. But "he made an exception because the issue is so important."
President Bush has denied that Enron exerted any influence over his administration, saying that government officials rejected appeals from Enron's leaders to bail out the company. But proponents of campaign finance say that the Enron scandal has tarnished the government regardless, causing an erosion of public confidence in the political system.
The Shays-Meehan bill, supporters say, would help Congress distance itself from the Enron scandal.
"Members of Congress are going to want to put some daylight between themselves and the finance system that contributed to this problem," Common Cause's Cronin said.
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
Parties Part Over Domestic Funding
By Kelly Field
WASHINGTON, Feb. 05--Partisanship returned to Congress this week, right around the time President Bush's red, white and blue budget appeared on lawmakers' desks. Within minutes, Democrats in the House and Senate were denouncing proposed cuts to domestic health, education and welfare programs.
"The budget sets up false choices," said Congressman John F. Tierney, D-Salem. "It cuts deeply into programs that affect people's quality of life and financial and income security."
Congressman Martin T. Meehan, D-Lowell, said he supports increasing resources for defense but is "concerned that the administration's budget doesn't make the investments in Social Security, Medicare and education that I support."
The President's $2.13 trillion budget would provide billions of dollars in new spending for the war on terrorism and homeland security but would squeeze a number of domestic programs including education and workforce training. It would also slash a technology opportunity program that last year provided Massachusetts with $2,610,214 in social service grants, and eliminate funds for an education dropout prevention program.
U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass, who yesterday toured Boston's Jewish Vocational Services to underscore the importance of worker training, said that the cuts proposed for the Workforce Investment Act program demonstrate Bush's lack of commitment to job creation.
"The President is not putting the money where his mouth is," Senator Kerry said. "(He) talks a good game about creating jobs, but so far its just talk."
In his State of the Union address last week, Bush said that his "economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs." He pointed out that "good jobs begin with good schools."
But last week, he rescinded a month-old promise to the Massachusetts delegation to provide $600,000 for a technology center at the Northern Essex Community College in Haverhill. The project, one of several slated to be slashed under a $1.3 billion cut in federal funds for 2002, would bring nine "smart classrooms" equipped with high-speed Internet access and digital projection capabilities to the campus.
Bush called for cuts in these and other programs to finance growth in the Pell Grant college aid program, which has grown as a result of the recession. The program provides eligible students with up to $4,000 in grant money. Tierney said that the computers would have helped prepare students in the Merrimack Valley for today's technology-dependent business environment. "We should not pit one educational program against another," he said.
Meehan, agreed, saying, "We can increase funding for key education programs without robbing funding for others."
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, who last week said he was willing to "work with (Bush) to meet the urgent challenges on the home front," said in floor debate that the budget showed a "disturbing neglect of many of our nation's most pressing domestic needs."
Kennedy blamed President Bush's tax cut for depleting the budget surplus and forcing spending cuts, reiterating his call for a postponement of tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest taxpayers. He said a "modest reduction" of $350 billion in future tax cuts would help protect programs and strengthen the financial stability of Social Security and Medicare.
"We cannot now afford the entire tax cut without ignoring critical national needs," he said. "If future tax cutsá.are treated as a sacred cow, many of the programs that help our neediest children will be sacrificed" and Social Security and Medicare will continue to be raided.
But while Massachusetts's Democratic Congressmen were excoriating Bush, New Hampshire's Republicans were-for the most part-extolling him. In a conference call, U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg praised the president for prioritizing national defense and homeland security and blamed the recession for the reduction in revenue.
Congressman Charles Bass, D-Peterborough, echoed this praise, saying he "fully" supported the President's primary goals of national, homeland and economic security."
Bush's budget would increase the Pentagon's spending authority by $48 billion, or 14 percent, the biggest boost for the military in two decades. Bush wants to add more money each succeeding year, reaching $451 billion in spending authority in 2003.
"It is an unprecedented budget to fit unprecedented times," said Congressman John E. Sununu, R-Bedford.
But even the Republican Congressmen had some reservations about the impact the defense and other spending increases would have on the budget deficit.
"I will examine the president's economic stimulus proposal to carefully consider its impact on the economy and the deficit," Bass said. Bass said he would also fight for a larger increase in special education spending and would make sure New Hampshire didn't lose environmental, transportation or education dollars. "The president in his budget has called for a $1 billion increase in funding for special education," said Bass, adding, "I think we can do better than that." Sununu said he would also work to get more money for special education.
Both he and Bass predicted a return to surpluses within the next few years.
On the reduction of job training programs, Sununu said that the president was trying to consolidate and streamline existing programs by targeting money to those programs that have been the most effective.
Published in The Eagle-Tribune, in Lawrence, Mass.
