Category: Spring 2002 Newswire
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.
Maine Receives An “F” For Its Child Safety Gun Laws
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30--Maine has received a failing grade for 2001 because its gun laws were judged inadequate to protect children from gun violence. This marks the fourth year in a row that the Brady Campaign, a Washington-based lobbyist group focused on preventing gun violence, has given the state an "F."
In conjunction with Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence and the Million Mom March of Maine, the Brady Campaign last week rated Maine's gun laws on seven criteria, ranging from the minimum age at which someone may purchase a gun to communities' legislative power to change their gun laws.
While some Mainers hope the newest "F" may impel some state legislators to reconsider current gun laws, others say that despite the state's uncomfortably high suicide and domestic violence rates, Maine is "an incredibly safe place to live" and the gun laws are fine as they are.
"Maine is not a Washington D.C. Maine is not a New York City," State Representative Edward J. Povich (D-Ellsworth), chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee said. The same gun-laws that apply to cities where homicide rates are high should not apply to Maine, he said, where owning a gun is "traditional." In Povich's view, it's the "city-folk opposing the country-folk."
The Brady Campaign "is an interest group that looks at figures in an extreme way," he said.
Cathie Whittenburg, executive director of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence and the mother of two, doesn't think of herself as an extremist: "My concerns come from being a mother." She pointed to Maine's high teen suicide and domestic homicide rate as reason enough to "tighten the laws."
The Brady Campaign based its numbers on statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which show that Maine had 10 firearms-related deaths of children and youth up to 19 years of age in 1998, the most recent year for which data are available. According to the CDC, the rate of firearms-related suicides in Maine that year was 3.89 percent per 100,000 people, and the rate of firearms-related homicide was 2.68 percent.
Massachusetts, in comparison, had lower rates of firearms-related suicides (2.37 percent) and homicide (1.98 percent) than Maine among children and youth 19 and under in 1998. The Brady Campaign gave Massachusetts an "A-."
George Smith, executive director of Sportsman's Alliance of Maine, a non-for-profit organization based in Augusta, said the suicide rate is a "real issue of concern," but added, "The Brady people are looking at a place they know nothing aboutá[Maine] is an incredibly safe place to live."
Smith said that Maine is a hunting state that has the second-highest gun ownership per capita in the country. He also pointed to an award the Children's Rights Council gave Maine in 2000 that distinguished it as "the best state in the country in which to raise a child."
Stephen McCausland, public information officer for the Maine State Police, agreed with Smith that Maine has a longstanding hunting tradition that is not taken into consideration by the Brady Campaign's "harsh" report.
This report is "not indicative of what we're doing up here," McCausland. One of the things the State Police are doing to protect children, he said, is providing free gun locks to gun owners who ask for them.
He said Maine's low rate of homicide is indicative of how the safe the state is. According to McCausland, the number of homicides in Maine in 2001 was 19, which was "one of the five lowest in the country."
Not everyone is convinced, however, that Maine's low homicide rate justifies the state's gun laws. "We do have a low homicide rate, but we're not immune to gun violence," Whittenburg said.
Whittenburg and Brenda DiDonato, president of the South Chapter Million Mom March, said that the firearms-related suicide rate should justify stricter gun laws.
Whittenburg also said that there are "adverse effects" when other states have strict gun laws while Maine does not. She said criminals from Massachusetts will "hop" up to Maine for their guns.
Most advocates of new gun laws say that Maine doesn't have strict background checks for gun buyers. At gun shows, for example, buyers are not required to go through background checks when purchasing a gun - the basis of another failing grade for Maine in early January awarded by the American Gun Safety Foundation.
According to the Brady Campaign report, Maine received an "F" for having no law that prohibits teens and children from possessing guns; no safety standards for handgun locks; no laws that give communites the right to regulate guns; and no background checks at guns shows. The state was also chided for handing out concealed weapons permits, and received a "D" for having a weak child access prevention law.
Despite the failing grades, Maine legislators are not overwhelming concerned about changing the rules: "The legislature doesn't agree that private gun-ownership is a problem." Povich said.
Published in The Bangor Daily News, in Maine.
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.
Smith Dissents on Emission Regulations
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29--Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., the senior Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, took a clear stand yesterday in opposing the proposed Clean Energy Act that Sen. Jim Jeffords, Ind.-VT, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, are sponsoring.
Smith spoke out at a Senate hearing of the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands and Climate Change. Frank Alix, chief executive officer of the New Hampshire based corporation Powerspan, testified with others at the hearing on technological innovations in the past few years to slash air pollution, specifically the high levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon emitted by power plants.
Alix, in his testimony, said his New Durham-based company's multi-pollutant control technology would dramatically reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury for coal-fired electric generating plants.
He stressed the importance of clear federal legislation to reduce harmful emissions and to spur technological innovation in reaching those goals. "Environmental technology is driven entirely by environmental regulations·. If you don't have the regulation, you'll never have the technology," Alix said.
Smith said he agreed that technological innovations would provide a more cost-effective approach to reducing emissions than older methods, but added that new regulations under the Clean Energy Act would be ineffective to reach these goals.
"Powerspan is making dramatic reductions in their pilot program in nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury," Smith said, "and I think that when you're talking 99 percent in sulfur dioxide and as much as 75 or 80 percent in nitrogen oxides and over 80 percent in mercury, those are dramatic reductions with technology which is half as expensive as the scrubbers of the 80s and 90s."
"I'm hopeful that we'll be able to work together to give tax incentives for innovation to reduce these pollutants," Smith added.
In place of the existing power plant regulations under the Clean Air Act, which he said he regards as neither effective nor efficient, Smith advocated a new non-legislative market-based emissions trading system known as "cap and trade," in which policymakers would set a mandatory cap on emissions and allow businesses to trade rights, or allowances, to those emissions.
"I know there's some critics on the left and the right, but we have the system, we have the Clean Air Act, and nobody's going to repeal it anytime soon; so we need to be working within that act," Smith said, dismissing the newest efforts at creating emissions-reduction legislation.
The Clean Energy Act of 1999, sponsored by Sen. Jim Jeffords, Independent-VT, and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT, would slash air pollution from older polluting power plants currently grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, maintain and increase investments in clean energy, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Alix said he agreed with the regulatory scheme that the Jeffords-Lieberman bill proposes but suggested an extended deadline for lowering power-plant emissions.
"In terms of ultimate control levels for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury, we think they're achievable, but we think the timing is a little bit too aggressive. We'd like to see a little more time and a little more of a stage for reduction," Alix said.
"It looks like there's a critical mass forming around the issue which is quite likely to result in legislation this year, which would help us," Alix added.
Smith, who is currently involved in securing funds to conserve 171,500 acres of International Paper Co. land in New Hampshire's North Country, stressed the importance of conservation and environmental issues for the people of New Hampshire. "Without our natural resources, the state would not be the great state that it is," he said.
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire
NH Members Applaud Bush, State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29--New Hampshire congressional members praised President Bush's State of the Union address last night and expressed support for his foreign and domestic policy initiatives.
Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Vietnam veteran, said he was particularly interested in what Bush had to say on national defense and foreign policy issues.
"An important issue was that of a pay raise for the military and replacing these precision weapons and old aircraft that are depleting and have a lot of wear and tear on equipment," said Smith, who recently returned from an extended tour of Central Asia. "I saw that when I was in Afghanistan, when one of the engines went out," said Smith of an incident in which the C-130 plane he was flying in lost one of its four engines.
For Smith, the war on terrorism trumps domestic concerns.
"When your homeland is attacked as we were then you rally behind your President," he said. "Other issues don't rise to the level of national security and homeland security of the United States."
"When lives are on the line, national security is first and foremost, and domestic security has to follow. You can't have Social Security and jobs and protection if we're at war," Smith added.
Bush acknowledged Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., in his speech for Gregg's efforts on education reform. Gregg was also a principal negotiator on the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
In a statement, Gregg said, "I obviously also appreciate his kind acknowledgement of my efforts that developed bipartisan proposals such as the education bill."
First District Congressman John Sununu, R-N.H., viewed Bush's domestic budget policy as a key factor in the national address, including a potential increase in federal funding for special education in New Hampshire.
Second District Congressman Charles Bass, R-N.H., said, "I think special education will be addressed in his budget. We're going to see not only a significant increase in special education funding but a reauthorization of special education which will make it work better," Bass said.
Sununu agreed with the Bush Administration's plan to implement controversial tax cuts without postponement.
"The middle of a recession is the worst possible time to raise taxes. If we override last year's legislation it will undermine consumer confidence in policymakers, and will only make the recession worse," Sununu said.
Rep. Raymond Buckley, New Hampshire House Democratic Whip, found Bush's speech lacking on issues of importance to New Hampshire citizens, such as education, retirement funds, and unemployment benefits.
"We heard a lot on homefront security, but economic security got the short shrift. I hope he's not reading from the same script his Dad did, because at that time New Hampshire's situation suffered greatly," Buckley said.
Chris Coates, a Keene City Councilor, agreed with Bush's defense priorities but found the address lacked specific ideas on domestic issues.
"New Hampshire is in a recession at this point and people are losing jobs, and on the domestic side we need to see how our President is going to address these issues," Coates said.
Published in The Keene Sentinel, in New Hampshire
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.
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.
Governmental Affairs Committee Holds Its First Enron Hearing
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24--Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., opened the first round of Senate hearings on the Enron Corp. financial collapse yesterday with an avowal that the Governmental Affairs Committee he chairs will propose reforms "to make sure that nothing like this happens again."
Enron, once the seventh largest corporation in the United States, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 2, leaving thousands of its employees and retirees with drastically reduced retirement funds as well as wiping out customers' and shareholders' company-related accounts.
"This is not just a tempest in a teapot," Lieberman said as the hearing began. "It is an unprecedented corporate storm that has already hurt thousands of people and now leaves dark clouds over America's economy and Americans' confidence in their future economic security. This scandal cries out for thorough congressional investigation to make sure that nothing like this happens again."
The committee intends to examine whether government agencies could have intervened before the ene
rgy company's accounting irregularities led to its collapse and whether these agencies need new powers to handle such situations in the future. Among yesterday's witnesses was Arthur Levitt Jr., the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), who said a better system of checks and balances is needed to restore the public's trust. "Healthy and resilient financial markets depend on the accountability of every, single one of its key actors - managers, auditors, directors, analysts, lawyers, rating agencies, standard setters, and regulators," Levitt said.
The committee also heard from Yale University Law and Legal History professor John H. Langbein, who specializes in pension and employee benefit law. He said the government may want to consider giving a federal protection guarantee to individuals with 401(k) retirement plans, as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requires for those who are covered by defined-benefit pension plans.
Lieberman opened the hearing by promising that the committee would act in a bipartisan manner in investigating Enron's alleged wrongdoings. "Because Enron has made substantial political contribution to members of Congress and the executive branch, some have questioned our capacity to conduct an independent, thorough investigation," he said.
The Governmental Affairs Committee hearings will look at the federal agencies that had jurisdiction over Enron and at the role of the White House "to determine what it knew and did," Lieberman said.
The conservative National Legal and Policy Center recently wrote a letter to Lieberman asking him to "avoid the appearance of a double standard" and recuse himself from the hearings because he had received $112,546 in campaign contributions since 1997 from Citigroup Inc's political action committee and employees. Citigroup is Enron's biggest creditor.
Lieberman has not said whether he plans to return these contributions as well as nearly $35,000 that Enron's former auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, had given to the New Democrat Network, a political action committee that the Senator co-founded in 1996.
Published in The Waterbury Republican-American, in Waterbury, Connecticut.
Bass Signs Shays-Meehan, Hits Andersen
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24--After addressing a congressional subcommittee on its investigation of the Enron accounting scandal yesterday, Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH) agreed, after months of hesitation, to sign a petition that will force House vote on the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill.
At the start of the jammed-packed Enron hearing by the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Bass joined other subcommittee members in decrying the shredding of Enron-related documents by accounting firm Arthur Andersen. Enron is no stranger to financing campaigns, having contributed $6 million to politicians since the 1990 election cycle, according to The Wall Street Journal.
"This is going to be a very sad process we go through here for the thousand or so people whose lives have been shredded by the actions of a few," Bass said. Hours later Bass added his name to the discharge petition that will force a vote on the campaign finance bill. The petition had 214 names before today, but three others joined Bass to bring the total to the necessary 218. Bass was one of only 20 Republicans to sign the petition.
Bass had been meeting with House Speaker Dennis Hastert for several months in an attempt to persuade the Speaker to allow a vote on the bill. "Unfortunately, we were unable to reach agreement, Bass said in a statement. "Today I helped provide the necessary signatures to force a vote." He added that Hastert "has indicated that he will honor the discharge petition and bring the Shays-Meehan bill to the floor in February."
Supporters of the bill praised the bipartisan effort that brought it to fruition. "This effort has not only been bipartisan but bicameral," said Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), one of the principal sponsors.
The Shays-Meehan bill would ban unregulated soft-money: contributions to federal elections. Over the past decade, $3.9 million in soft money contributions have been given to the Republican and Democratic National Committees.
After the House adjourned last month with only 214 signatures on the discharge petition, newspapers and grass-root organizations began to campaign for the needed four signers. Some residents of Bass's second district received phone calls from Campaign for America, according to National Journal's CongressDaily, in an attempt to sway Bass to sign it.
"I think it would have been difficult for Congressman Bass not to sign the discharge petition, having been a star supporter of campaign finance reform in the past," said Mike Dennehy, a Republican National Committee member from New Hampshire. "The second district in New Hampshire is a more moderate district, and I think he reflects those views."
Published in The Union Leader, in Manchester, New Hampshire
