The Future of the Labor Movement
Darryl Cherness asked:
As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.
Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.
There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.
What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?
First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.
In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.
Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.
Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.
Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.
I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”
Add A Comment
Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »
As election day draws near, it appears extremely likely that Barack Obama will be elected the next President of the United States. In addition, there is a general consensus, even among Republicans, that the Democrats will pickup seats in congress and may even obtain a “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate.
Currently, the Democrats have 49 seats in the Senate. In addition to those 49 seats, there are 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernard Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving them a 51 seat majority. However, in order to get anything done in the Senate, 60 votes are needed to break Republican sponsored filibusters, the process of talking a bill to death and preventing action on urgently needed legislation.
There is general agreement, given the state of the economy, that 2008 will be a Democratic year. If Democrats pick up 5 seats in the Senate, the minimum they are projected to win, they will have 56 votes and will only need 4 Republican votes to break a filibuster. However, if the Democrats pick up 9 votes, difficult but not impossible, they will be able to shut off debate without crossover Republican votes.
What will it mean for the labor movement to have a filibuster proof, Democratic majority in the Senate?
First and foremost, it means that the Employee Free Choice Act will be enacted into law. The Democratic congress will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act and send that legislation to President Barack Obama who will sign it into law. Once the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law and management can no longer manipulate company based representation elections, it is a safe bet that there should be a significant increase in the number of union represented employees in the United States.
In addition to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, a strong Democratic majority in congress can be counted on to periodically raise the federal minimum wage for the working poor. Hopefully, the days of having to wait nine years for small increases in the minimum wage should become a relic of the past.
Other areas where significant changes can be anticipated include revisions in NAFTA to make it more labor friendly, the elimination of tax incentives to encourage American businesses to relocate overseas, greater regulation of the home loan industry to prevent a reoccurrence of the “subprime” housing debacle, and tax breaks for middle income wage earners.
Another significant change will come in the area of job creation. Unlike George Bush, Senator Obama has made it clear that he intends to spend significant sums of money on promoting renewable energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The expenditure of these funds should create thousands of new jobs for working men and women.
Finally, it is my belief that it is absolutely inevitable that the Democratic congress and the new Democratic president will allocate significant resources for “public works” projects; i.e. repair of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers, water treatment plants, etc. Rather than rely on the marketplace to generate wealth that will “trickle down” to the masses, Obama and the Democratic congress will take direct action to stimulate our economy and return our nation to prosperity by means of these job creating projects.
I believe that the next four years may very well be recorded by historians as labor’s new “golden age.”
Add A Comment
Logged in as Darryl Cherness. Logout »
A History and Explanation of the Filibuster
Garry Gamber asked:
The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.
The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.
The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Filibuster as Piracy
From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.
Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.
A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.
The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.
Filibuster as a Political Tool
During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.
As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.
Legislative Rules
The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.
On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.
The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.
The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.
The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.
Senate Rule XIX
Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.
Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.
A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.
While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.
Senate Rule XXII
The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.
One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.
In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.
If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.
If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.
Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.
Conclusion
The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.
On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.
The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.
The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.
The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.
The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Filibuster as Piracy
From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.
Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.
A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.
The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.
Filibuster as a Political Tool
During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.
As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.
Legislative Rules
The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.
On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.
The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.
The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.
The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.
Senate Rule XIX
Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.
Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.
A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.
While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.
Senate Rule XXII
The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.
One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.
In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.
If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.
If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.
Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.
Conclusion
The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.
On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.
The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.
Famous Filibusters in American Political History
Garry Gamber asked:
The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.
The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.
Senator Henry Clay
In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.
Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”
Senate Rule 22
President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.
Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.
Senator Huey Long
Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.
On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.
James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.
Senator Wayne Morse
Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.
On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.
Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.
Senator Strom Thurmond
About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.
Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.
Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.
After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.
Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.
Justice Abe Fortas
In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.
President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.
Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.
The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.
The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. Here are a few of the famous filibusters from our political history.
The U.S. Constitution does not limit the length or nature of debate on the floors of the Senate or the House of Representatives. The House has since adopted rules which limit the length of debate since the House has a very large number of Representatives. But the smaller Senate has always upheld the right of a recognized Senator to debate an issue for as long as he or she wishes to hold the floor. Senate Rule 19 and Rule 22, the cloture rule adopted in 1917, create some guidelines for conducting a debate and for closing the debate when it becomes lengthy.
Senator Henry Clay
In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay’s colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate’s right to unlimited debate.
Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960’s the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential “tyranny of the majority,” but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the “tyranny of the minority.”
Senate Rule 22
President Woodrow Wilson suggested that some limits be placed on the unlimited debate concept. In 1917 the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22, now known as the “cloture” rule. The new Rule 22 provided the mechanism to close out debate on a legislative bill and bring the bill up for a vote if cloture was approved by 67% of the Senate. The 67% requirement remained in effect until 1975 when Rule 22 was amended to allow a 60% agreement to invoke cloture.
Cloture Rule 22 was tested in 1919 when the Senate was asked to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. The treaty was debated and filibustered, but a 67% majority voted to end the filibuster and to bring the treaty to a vote.
Senator Huey Long
Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.
On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.
After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.
James Stewart brought more fame to the filibuster when he played the role of Senator Jefferson Smith in the 1939 film, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Stewart’s character launched into a filibuster in response to an attempt to ridicule him.
Senator Wayne Morse
Senator Wayne Morse from Oregon was called “The Tiger of the Senate” and served in the Senate under 5 Presidents. In 1952 Senator Morse left the Republican Party, claiming independent status, when he objected to sections of the party platform and Dwight Eisenhower’s choice of Richard Nixon as his vice presidential running mate. Senator Morse claimed that the Republican Party had left him.
On April 24, 1953, Senator Morse began to filibuster against Tidelands Oil legislation. He kept the floor for 22 hours and 26 minutes, breaking the filibuster record of 18 hours held by his mentor, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette.
Senator Morse is remembered through numerous colorful stories. For example, Clare Booth Luce, former U.S. Senator and Ambassador to Italy had to resign her appointment when she made the insulting but funny remark that her problems with Senator Morse began when he was kicked in the head by a horse.
Senator Strom Thurmond
About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.
Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.
Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.
After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.
Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come,” he said. “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history.
Justice Abe Fortas
In June of 1968 Chief Justice Earl Warren notified President Lyndon Johnson that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court. This move gave President Johnson time to nominate a successor since he was not planning to seek re-election as President. Johnson nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to replace Warren. At the same time Johnson nominated Texas Appeals Court Justice Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas, a move that was designed to satisfy southern senators.
President Johnson counted on Senators Everett Dirksen and Richard Russell for their support of the nomination. When Abe Fortas testified at his own confirmation hearing, an unprecedented occurrence, it was revealed that Fortas worked uncomfortably closely with the White House staff and the President. Later it was learned that Fortas was being paid a large sum, privately, to teach an American University summer course. At this point Dirksen, Russell, and other senators withdrew their support.
Though the committee recommended confirmation of Justice Abe Fortas, a filibuster ensued on the Senate floor to block his confirmation, the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination. On October 1, 1968, the Senate was unable to tally the 67 votes needed to invoke cloture and President Johnson withdrew the nomination.
The use of the filibuster has increased from 16 filibusters in the 19th century to 66 in the first half of the 20th century to 195 in the period from 1970 to 1995. It is likely that the filibuster will continue to play an important role in the American political process.
Biden His Time? Could Joe Biden’s Grand Slams Bring ‘em Home and Help America in Its Crisis?
Carol Forsloff asked:
Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.
Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.
At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.
We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.
Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.
Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.
Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues. He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.
Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.
Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.
Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.
At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.
We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.
Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.
Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.
Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues. He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.
Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.
First step? The border
November 9, 2009 by admin
Filed under Immigration
Cathy D. Christiansen asked:
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 1, 2009
The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.
In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”
One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.
President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”
It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.
On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.
There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.
Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.
President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 1, 2009
The U.S. immigration system is “broken and needs fixing.” So confirms President Obama after meeting with Republican and Democratic leaders last Thursday. Although there is no consensus yet in terms of what a restructuring of the immigration system will include, the process has now begun in earnest to adopt a comprehensive plan. President Obama acknowledged that the broken immigration system is “one of the most critical issues” that our nation faces.
In his remarks following the meeting, President Obama said: “My administration is fully behind an effort to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. I have asked my Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Janet Napolitano, to lead up a group that is going to be working with a leadership group from both the House and the Senate to start systematically working through these issues . . .”
One of the key issues that must be dealt with early in the immigration discussion concerns border security. At this point the American public is just not persuaded that the borders are secure. Until the borders are secured, it is unclear whether there are enough votes for the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said “I think the votes in the Senate are a little dicey at the moment. I don’t think it can pass today.” Developing an intelligent plan that clearly articulates the steps to make the border more secure will go a long way in getting the necessary votes.
President Obama is clearly aware that the road ahead will be bumpy. In his statement he said: “We all know that comprehensive immigration reform is difficult. We know it’s a sensitive and politically volatile issue. One of the things that was said around the table is the American people still don’t have enough confidence that Congress and any administration is going to get serious about border security, and so they’re concerned that any immigration reform simply will be a short-term legalization of undocumented workers with no long-term solution with respect to future flows of illegal immigration.”
It seems that the president has hit the nail on the head. In order to come up with a meaningful immigration policy that will serve our nation long-term, the government must come up with a solution to secure the borders. Assuming this can be accomplished, then the many issues associated with immigration reform can be debated.
On the eve of last week’s bipartisan meeting with the president, Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Senate’s main immigration subcommittee, offered that one of the ideas being considered is a requirement that all U.S. workers verify their identity through fingerprint or eye scan. As reported by The Washington Post, Schumer said that a national system to verify work authorization is necessary because Congress hasn’t cracked down hard enough on unscrupulous employers and illegal immigrants with fake documents. Schumer shows he gets the key issue when he says: “The American people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.” In a nutshell, that is the issue. Control the borders, and then fix the broken system.
There are approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. Schumer expects legislation to be enacted that will secure the nation’s borders and require those here illegally to register with the government and “submit to a rigorous process to convert to legal status,” or face immediate deportation.
Done right, there is the opportunity to achieve some real long-lasting benefits here, not the least of which is the securing of our borders, having millions of non-tax paying people come out of the shadows and onto the tax rolls and developing a process to ensure that the work force is legitimate.
President Obama has conceded that “It’s going to require some heavy lifting; it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policymaking over short term politics.” Here’s to the effort; let’s hope that all involved have the clarity and foresight to address the obvious first — securing our borders, and then the muscle to see through the remaining challenges.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Obama: health insurance mandate no tax increase
Chad asked:
President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.
Blanketing most of the Sunday TV news shows, Obama defended his proposed health care overhaul, including a key point of the various health care bills on Capitol Hill: mandating that people get health insurance to share the cost burden fairly among all. Those who failed to get coverage would face financial penalties.
Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping “exchange” to tax credits.
Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama told ABC’s “This Week.”
“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”
Obama faces an enormous political and communications challenge in selling his health care plan as Congress debates how to pay for it all.
He told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he will keep his pledge not to raise taxes on families earning up to $250,000, and that much of the final bill — hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years — can be achieved from savings within the current system. Coming up with the rest remains a key legislative obstacle.
Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.
“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Obama’s network interviews were taped Friday at the White House. He became the first president to appear on five Sunday network shows in the same morning, an extraordinary effort to build public support for his top domestic priority.
The goal is expand and improve health insurance coverage and rein in long-term costs.
Yet despite so many weeks of speeches, town halls and interviews, Obama said he has found it difficult at times to make a complex topic clear and relevant.
“I’ve tried to keep it digestible,” Obama said. “It’s very hard for people to get their arms around it. And that’s been a case where I have been humbled and I just keep on trying harder.”
Obama told Univision’s “Al Punto” (”To the Point”) that the strong opposition to his plan is part of a political strategy.
“Well, part of it is … that the opposition has made a decision,” he said. “They are just not going to support anything, for political reasons.”
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama doesn’t understand Republicans’ opposition.
“I don’t know anybody in my Republican conference in the Senate who’s in favor of doing nothing on health care,” McConnell said. “We obviously have a cost problem and we have an access problem.”
But he told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the Democrats’ plan is simply too rushed.
Health care debate turns to immigrants Frontera NorteSur
Chad asked:
After less than eight months in office, President Barack Obama’s administration is under serious scrutiny by some leading immigrant advocates.
As the legislative drive for health care insurance reform picks up steam, pro-immigrant groups are increasingly alarmed by proposals that target both documented and undocumented resident of the US.
In a telephonic press conference September 16, Latino rights, religious and political leaders blasted policy ideas circulating around the White House and Capitol Hill as not only an attack on the immigrant community
but a threat to public health as well.
“We’ve been deeply disturbed by developments in the health care debate and the treatment of immigrants in it,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the Washington, D.C-based Americas Voice immigrant advocacy organization.
Sharry criticized Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana), President Obama and Democrats for bending over backwards to accommodate political opponents, especially Republicans like shouting South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who “demonize immigrants.”
Sharry and other pro-immigrant leaders said they were deeply concerned by measures unveiled in the Senate Finance Committee and in other quarters on Capitol Hill that would exclude immigrants from participating in an insurance exchange even with their own money, prevent children of undocumented residents from getting coverage, probe the residency status of emergency room patients, and make verification of residency status an expanded, cumbersome process for both citizens and non-citizens alike.
According to Eric Rodriguez, vice-president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) an estimated 7 of 28 million legal immigrants do not have health insurance.
Under the plan released by Senator Baucus today, undocumented immigrants, who will be virtually barred from obtaining any kind of health insurance at all, would face fines of $950 and upwards if they managed to obtain any sort of emergency treatment.
US Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) voiced dismay that the White House was considering keeping many immigrants out of the insurance exchange, especially after Gutierrez and other members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus agreed that no public monies or tax credits could be used by undocumented residents in a new health insurance reform scheme.
Gutierrez contended that prohibiting undocumented residents from being in the exchange even with their own cash could result in masses of people losing their health insurance coverage.
“What about millions of undocumented workers who have health care through their employers?” Gutierrez asked. “Are they going to lose their benefits?”
“Health care policies should not be dictated by a heckler,” said NCLR President Janet Murguia, in a separate statement also made on September 16. Despite some improvements in the plan announced by Sen. Baucus,
Murguia warned that the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee had the potential to “drive up costs, leave people uncovered and threaten public health.”
Kevin Appleby, director of migrant policy for the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, said that the Church, one of the largest health care providers in the country, often provides treatment to immigrants. The migrant
advocate characterized the denial of health care to sick people as a “fool-hardy” and “mean-spirited” policy. Asserting that the Obama Administration had “capitulated” to anti-immigrant forces, Appleby said
that elected officials had sacrificed public health care on the altar on politics.
Rev. Luis Cortes, president of Esperanza USA, said that it wasn’t too long ago when widespread concern surfaced about the H1N1 virus, but that current proposals on the table would jeopardize people in dire need of health care.
Both political parties, Cortes contended, are “running the fastest to see who is the harshest.” Judging looming actions by Congress and the White House, as “morally punishable by Christian scripture,” Cortes said that the political price could be high for Democrats as well as Republicans. Adding that the immigrant community was once hopeful of the Democrats, Cortes said that local elections would have to be examined “one-by-one” in the future.
Numerous analysts consider New American voters, immigrants and their children, a key voting bloc that swept the Democrats into the White House and Congress last year. Many pro-immigrant groups are growing increasingly frustrated by the pace of immigration reform promised by presidential candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.
Speaking to reporters, Rep. Gutierrez recalled how the Latino community was inspired by Obama’ candidacy, and took to heart the fellow Illinois Democrat’s pledge to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and on to the path of legalization. “That’s the President I voted for, not the one who says you cannot have health care,” Gutierrez said.
The longtime Latino political leader and other participants of the September 16 press conference called for the end of “wedge” politics and the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.
The immigration solution: Get politicians to commit
May 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under Immigration
Jerry Erickson asked:
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 22, 2009
As the Obama administration begins to tackle the issues associated with immigration reform, it is undoubtedly searching for the keys to fixing our broken and neglected immigration system. The issues that we face are not all new and previous administrations have recognized the seriousness of finding and implementing a proper strategy. When President Clinton appointed Barbara Jordan to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform on Dec. 14, 1993, he understood that immigration was an issue that could no longer be ignored. In appointing Ms. Jordan, he said:
“I have chosen Barbara Jordan — one of the most well-respected people in America — to chair this commission because immigration is one of the most important and complex issues facing our country today.“
Ms. Jordan led what is referred to as the “Jordan Commission“… due in large part because of her efforts and her leadership on the commission. She passed away in January 1996 and the commission’s report, largely completed at the time of her death, was issued on Sept. 30, 1997. It’s important to note that this was a bipartisan group of nine members — four members chosen by the leadership from both the House and Senate, and the chairman being chosen by the president. Despite the differences in political loyalties among the group, the commission was unanimous in almost all of its policy
recommendations, with the exception of an 8-1 vote in favor of reducing the annual number associated with legal immigration.
Ms. Jordan also understood that the issues were tough. In testifying before Congress, she said:
“Our work has not been easy. Distinguishing fact from fiction has been almost impossible, because of what has become a highly emotional debate on immigration. We have heard contradictory testimony, shaky statistics, and a great deal of honest confusion regarding the impacts of immigration. Nevertheless, we have tried throughout to engage in what we believe is a systematic, nonpartisan effort to reach conclusions drawn from analysis of the best data available. The recommendations that I present today have been adopted unanimously.“
One of the commission’s most forward-thinking recommendations was to divide the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into two separate divisions: one for enforcement and border patrol, and the other for immigration services, such as processing
visas and permanent resident applications. That idea, along with many others, were not acted upon initially and, in fact, little occurred after the report was issued in 1997. Again, having great ideas is only half the battle when it comes to immigration reform.
The recommendation to divide INS was finally embraced after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and was ultimately implemented in March 2003. The strategy provided that all immigration functions would be in the hands of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, but now the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be solely responsible for the adjudication of visa petitions, naturalization, asylum and refugee applications while the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be responsible for border patrol,
detention, removal, intelligence, investigations and inspections.
The U.S. immigration policies are exceptionally complex and have long been considered too hot to handle. As a result, politicians have sidestepped the larger issues and have been unwilling to step up and be heard on the issues for fear of risking re-election.
Getting the support from the public will require that the immigration proposals makes sense and that there will be significant improvement in handling an issue that has long vexed political leaders. We will need our leaders to act in a nonpartisan way as they search for a solution and agree on a plan to implement same.
Our country is at its best when government functions in a nonpartisan fashion, truly seeking to do good for the country as a whole. There is no doubt in my mind that solutions to the immigration crisis can be developed. The bigger challenge will be finding politicians committed and willing to speak up and advocate implementation of the solutions.
Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
Jerry Erickson
Published: July 22, 2009
As the Obama administration begins to tackle the issues associated with immigration reform, it is undoubtedly searching for the keys to fixing our broken and neglected immigration system. The issues that we face are not all new and previous administrations have recognized the seriousness of finding and implementing a proper strategy. When President Clinton appointed Barbara Jordan to chair the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform on Dec. 14, 1993, he understood that immigration was an issue that could no longer be ignored. In appointing Ms. Jordan, he said:
“I have chosen Barbara Jordan — one of the most well-respected people in America — to chair this commission because immigration is one of the most important and complex issues facing our country today.“
Ms. Jordan led what is referred to as the “Jordan Commission“… due in large part because of her efforts and her leadership on the commission. She passed away in January 1996 and the commission’s report, largely completed at the time of her death, was issued on Sept. 30, 1997. It’s important to note that this was a bipartisan group of nine members — four members chosen by the leadership from both the House and Senate, and the chairman being chosen by the president. Despite the differences in political loyalties among the group, the commission was unanimous in almost all of its policy
recommendations, with the exception of an 8-1 vote in favor of reducing the annual number associated with legal immigration.
Ms. Jordan also understood that the issues were tough. In testifying before Congress, she said:
“Our work has not been easy. Distinguishing fact from fiction has been almost impossible, because of what has become a highly emotional debate on immigration. We have heard contradictory testimony, shaky statistics, and a great deal of honest confusion regarding the impacts of immigration. Nevertheless, we have tried throughout to engage in what we believe is a systematic, nonpartisan effort to reach conclusions drawn from analysis of the best data available. The recommendations that I present today have been adopted unanimously.“
One of the commission’s most forward-thinking recommendations was to divide the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into two separate divisions: one for enforcement and border patrol, and the other for immigration services, such as processing
visas and permanent resident applications. That idea, along with many others, were not acted upon initially and, in fact, little occurred after the report was issued in 1997. Again, having great ideas is only half the battle when it comes to immigration reform.
The recommendation to divide INS was finally embraced after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and was ultimately implemented in March 2003. The strategy provided that all immigration functions would be in the hands of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, but now the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would be solely responsible for the adjudication of visa petitions, naturalization, asylum and refugee applications while the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be responsible for border patrol,
detention, removal, intelligence, investigations and inspections.
The U.S. immigration policies are exceptionally complex and have long been considered too hot to handle. As a result, politicians have sidestepped the larger issues and have been unwilling to step up and be heard on the issues for fear of risking re-election.
Getting the support from the public will require that the immigration proposals makes sense and that there will be significant improvement in handling an issue that has long vexed political leaders. We will need our leaders to act in a nonpartisan way as they search for a solution and agree on a plan to implement same.
Our country is at its best when government functions in a nonpartisan fashion, truly seeking to do good for the country as a whole. There is no doubt in my mind that solutions to the immigration crisis can be developed. The bigger challenge will be finding politicians committed and willing to speak up and advocate implementation of the solutions.
Jerry Erickson is the managing partner of Szabo, Zelnick, & Erickson, P.C. (www.szelaw.com), in Woodbridge, Virginia. He is the senior attorney in the firm’s Business Immigration Section. He has practiced law for over 20 years and represents clients in numerous complex areas of immigration law. He can be reached at jerickson@szelaw.com or (703) 494-7171.
The above information is provided for informational purposes only. The information should not be construed as legal advice and does not constitute an engagement of the Szabo, Zelnick & Erickson, P.C. law firm or establish an attorney-client relationship with any of its attorneys. An attorney-client relationship with our firm is only created by signing a written agreement with our firm.
