Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Preventing Outbreak of Bigotry Before it Infects Our Children
I've been working on an ongoing project to bring attention to the recent outbreak of hatred and bigotry in public discourse. When individuals resort to hatred to spread their message, it causes great harm to our civil society. We must come together to proactively end these despicable tactics before the hateful rhetoric infects the minds of our children. Recently, I released a memo on hatred and bigotry, which you can read here.
The Center for Public Policy Priorities honored former Texas legislator and Ambassador to Sweden, Lyndon Olson, with its Texas Legacy Award. At the CPPP luncheon, Ambassador Olson gave an extraordinary speech on civility in society and in politics, which you can read here.
Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa is working with the Obama administration in a national tour to promote civility. You can learn more about his efforts here.
Below, I’ve included an article written by Peggy Fikac on the need for civility in public discourse.
And now a word (please) about civility
AUSTIN — Perhaps the holiday season is a good time to give the civility movement a chance.
Jim Leach — a former GOP congressman from Iowa who backed Obama and is National Endowment for the Humanities chairman — has a national tour to promote civility.
“It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics. .. Most bizarrely, some in public life have toyed with hints of history-blind radicalism — the notion of ‘secession,'” said part of a Leach speech that Washington
Post columnist E.J. Dionne called a reference to GOP Gov. Rick Perry (Perry has noted he didn't advocate secession but only suggested it was possible).
In Oklahoma, experts gathered to weigh, “Why Have We Become So Mean?” Birmingham mayoral hopefuls took part in a radio forum, “Do the Right Thing — It's a Matter of Manners!”
Here in big-talking Texas, former ambassador Lyndon Olson gave a speech on civility in which he said even the most intractable issues leave room for constructive debate. His text cites words from Lyndon B. Johnson to George Wallace n civil rights: “What do you want left behind? You want a great, big marble monument that says, ‘George Wallace: He built.' Or do you want a little piece of scrawny pine lying there that says, ‘George Wallace: He hated.'”
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, continued the civility conversation in recent days by condemning “hatred and bigotry in public discourse.” Coleman, citing issues like states' rights and secession, took aim at “hate-based campaigning” as a “despicable practice that threatens to take our country backwards in time.”
As elections kick into high gear in the new year, is there a chance for civility to prevail, especially between Perry and U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose backers paint it as a race between “Slick Rick” and “Kay Bailout”?
“There's always room for civility. People also want candidates and elected officials who are passionate about their ideas,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner. “The governor has been very cordial to the senator.”
Hutchison spokesman Jennifer Baker said her candidate will focus on issues and referred to campaign-trail hijinks: “If Rick Perry wants to continue to attack Kay Bailey Hutchison and harass her with childish antics that employ the use of farm animals and planes, he's going to have to deal with the backlash from voters.”
And what of Leach's reference to Perry? “He doesn't have his facts right,” Miner said. “He's a candidate who lost his office and is now in the back of a bus being driven around the country.”
Civility. Is there a chance? Well, it is the season for miracles.
Former Hutchison staffer Matt Mackowiak has been the staunches of her loyalists, so I wondered if he got any blowback when he called her “somewhat needy and demanding” in the New York Times. His response, “The short answer is no. The senator knows I am extremely supportive and feel tremendous loyalty to her.” Mackowiak said his full quote was, “She can be somewhat needy and demanding but she works harder than anyone else and she never asks anyone to do anything that she won't do herself.”
***
When hair-care magnate Farouk Shami filed for governor last week, KVUE television in Austin asked him whether Texas was ready for a Governor Shami. His response: “We have a black president and it's time for a brown governor.”
***
A sign of the tough economy? The state auditor says turnover for full-and part-time state government employees fell to 14.4 percent in fiscal year 2009, the lowest in the last five fiscal years. Factors included higher salaries, retention programs and an increase in the unemployment rate.
The Center for Public Policy Priorities honored former Texas legislator and Ambassador to Sweden, Lyndon Olson, with its Texas Legacy Award. At the CPPP luncheon, Ambassador Olson gave an extraordinary speech on civility in society and in politics, which you can read here.
Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa is working with the Obama administration in a national tour to promote civility. You can learn more about his efforts here.
Below, I’ve included an article written by Peggy Fikac on the need for civility in public discourse.
And now a word (please) about civility
AUSTIN — Perhaps the holiday season is a good time to give the civility movement a chance.
Jim Leach — a former GOP congressman from Iowa who backed Obama and is National Endowment for the Humanities chairman — has a national tour to promote civility.
“It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics. .. Most bizarrely, some in public life have toyed with hints of history-blind radicalism — the notion of ‘secession,'” said part of a Leach speech that Washington
Post columnist E.J. Dionne called a reference to GOP Gov. Rick Perry (Perry has noted he didn't advocate secession but only suggested it was possible).
In Oklahoma, experts gathered to weigh, “Why Have We Become So Mean?” Birmingham mayoral hopefuls took part in a radio forum, “Do the Right Thing — It's a Matter of Manners!”
Here in big-talking Texas, former ambassador Lyndon Olson gave a speech on civility in which he said even the most intractable issues leave room for constructive debate. His text cites words from Lyndon B. Johnson to George Wallace n civil rights: “What do you want left behind? You want a great, big marble monument that says, ‘George Wallace: He built.' Or do you want a little piece of scrawny pine lying there that says, ‘George Wallace: He hated.'”
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, continued the civility conversation in recent days by condemning “hatred and bigotry in public discourse.” Coleman, citing issues like states' rights and secession, took aim at “hate-based campaigning” as a “despicable practice that threatens to take our country backwards in time.”
As elections kick into high gear in the new year, is there a chance for civility to prevail, especially between Perry and U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose backers paint it as a race between “Slick Rick” and “Kay Bailout”?
“There's always room for civility. People also want candidates and elected officials who are passionate about their ideas,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner. “The governor has been very cordial to the senator.”
Hutchison spokesman Jennifer Baker said her candidate will focus on issues and referred to campaign-trail hijinks: “If Rick Perry wants to continue to attack Kay Bailey Hutchison and harass her with childish antics that employ the use of farm animals and planes, he's going to have to deal with the backlash from voters.”
And what of Leach's reference to Perry? “He doesn't have his facts right,” Miner said. “He's a candidate who lost his office and is now in the back of a bus being driven around the country.”
Civility. Is there a chance? Well, it is the season for miracles.
Former Hutchison staffer Matt Mackowiak has been the staunches of her loyalists, so I wondered if he got any blowback when he called her “somewhat needy and demanding” in the New York Times. His response, “The short answer is no. The senator knows I am extremely supportive and feel tremendous loyalty to her.” Mackowiak said his full quote was, “She can be somewhat needy and demanding but she works harder than anyone else and she never asks anyone to do anything that she won't do herself.”
***
When hair-care magnate Farouk Shami filed for governor last week, KVUE television in Austin asked him whether Texas was ready for a Governor Shami. His response: “We have a black president and it's time for a brown governor.”
***
A sign of the tough economy? The state auditor says turnover for full-and part-time state government employees fell to 14.4 percent in fiscal year 2009, the lowest in the last five fiscal years. Factors included higher salaries, retention programs and an increase in the unemployment rate.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
9:28 AM
Monday, December 21, 2009
Health Insurance Bill Clears Key Vote in U.S. Senate
The health insurance reform bill cleared a crucial procedural vote in the Senate just past midnight, as Senate Democrats secured the 60 votes needed to move the bill forward. There are a series of five votes remaining before the bill makes it out of the Senate, with the final vote tentatively schedule for 7 pm on Christmas Eve.
Below is a New York Times article on the new developments in the Senate.
December 21, 2009
Health Bill Passes Key Test in the Senate With 60 Votes
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.
The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The vote was 60 to 40 — a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
Both parties hailed the vote as seismic.
Democrats said it showed them poised to reshape the health system after decades of failed attempts.
“Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. “Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried.”
Republicans said that the bill was fatally flawed and that voters would retaliate against Democrats at the polls in November.
“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.
Mr. Alexander added, “Our friends on the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake, which will be bad for the Democrats, I am convinced, but unfortunately even much worse for our country.”
And each side blamed the other for the extraordinary series of votes — at dawn Saturday, after midnight Monday, at dawn again on Tuesday, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and finally on Christmas Eve, when most Americans will be sequestered for the holiday.
The Democrats charged the Republicans with obstinately throwing every procedural obstacle in their way, including filibusters and the full 30 hours of debate allowed under the rules after each filibuster is broken by a vote of 60 senators.
The Republicans charged the Democrats with recklessly rushing to adopt a dizzyingly complex 2,700-page bill that would affect virtually every single American, and would reshape one-sixth of the nation’s economy at a cost of $871 billion over 10 years.
“If the Republicans want to exercise every single right they have under the rules, they can keep us here until Christmas Eve, no doubt about it,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “But to what end, I ask? To what end? We’re going to have the vote at 1 a.m. that requires 60 votes, and then why stay here until Christmas Eve to do what they know we’re going to do?”
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he and his colleagues had a duty to fight until the last minute.
“There is nothing inevitable about this,” Mr. Cornyn said. “The only thing I think inevitable about it is in the light of the unpopularity of what is being jammed down the throats of the American people, there will be a day of accounting. We don’t know when that day of accounting will be. Perhaps the first day of accounting will be Election Day 2010.”
Adoption of the legislation is not a certainty.
The Senate bill, once completed, must be reconciled with a bill adopted last month by the House, and there are substantial differences between the two. The House measure, for instance, includes a government-run health insurance plan, or public option, that was dropped from the Senate bill.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said the House would not just accept the Senate bill. And some Senate Democrats have warned that they could turn against the bill if changes made during negotiations with the House are not to their liking.
Given the late hour, the White House did not issue a statement after the Senate vote.
The health care legislation, which President Obama, has called his top domestic priority, seeks to extend health benefits to more than 30 million people who are currently uninsured. The bill would require nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, or pay financial penalties for failing to do so, and it would provide federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans buy private coverage.
About half of the people who would gain coverage, some 15 million, would do so through a broad expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans, and growth in the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
To pay for the new coverage, the bill would impose an array of fees and taxes, including an increase in the payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 and a new excise tax on high-cost insurance polices. The bill also calls for major reductions in government spending, by slowing the growth of Medicare.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the $871 billion cost of the bill would be more than offset by the new revenues and cuts in spending, so that it would reduce future federal budget deficits by $132 billion between 2010 and 2019.
The outcome of the Monday morning vote was effectively decided on Saturday, when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, the last hold-out, announced that he would support the bill and Mr. Reid unveiled his final “manager’s” package of changes. Mr. Reid’s amendment included provisions aimed at winning over Mr. Nelson and others. Republicans derided the changes as akin to bribery.
On Sunday, any lingering doubts were put to rest. Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, who voted in favor of several Republican amendments to the health care bill issued a statement saying he would support the measure. And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who had been in intense talks with the White House, issued a statement saying she would vote no.
But the late-night session was not without drama, thanks to the tremendous snowstorm on Saturday that buried much of the Northeast, and caught some senators away from Washington with limited travel options. Because Amtrak was experiencing severe delays, a government plane had to be sent to retrieve Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrats.
Because the Democrats nominally control the votes of 60 senators — 58 Democrats and two independents aligned with them — which is the precise number needed to overcome filibusters, the absence of even one lawmaker would have changed the outcome of the vote and would probably have forced Democrats to miss their deadline of adopting the health care legislation by Christmas.
The most senior senator, Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, who turned 92 years old last month and uses a wheelchair, was invoked by both sides as a victim of the parliamentary warfare that has the Senate convening at all hours of the day and night.
The 1 a.m. Monday vote was on a motion to cut off debate on Mr. Reid’s manager’s package. A simple majority vote to approve the package is scheduled for roughly 7 a.m. on Tuesday.
The middle-of-the night session had a surreal quality to it. The chaplain, Barry C. Black, who opened the contentious Sunday session of the Senate with a prayer, did so again at 12:01 a.m. to officially begin a new legislative day.
For many Democrats, the landmark vote summoned the memory of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a champion of universal health care for his entire career, but who died in August before achieving that goal.
Mr. Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, sat in the front row of the spectator gallery to watch the vote. Seated behind her was the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, and the director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle.
“The historic moment before us is the easiest choice and perhaps the most historic vote we may ever cast as United States senators,” said Senator Paul G. Kirk, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was named to fill Mr. Kennedy’s seat. “Is this a bill of real reform that Ted Kennedy would champion and vote for? Absolutely, yes. Ted Kennedy knew real reform when he saw it, and so do I.”
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who was one of Mr. Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate and who worked with him on many bipartisan health care bills over the years, said Democrats had failed to live up to Mr. Kennedy’s spirit of cooperation.
“The historic blizzard in Washington yesterday was a perfect symbol of the anger and frustration brewing,” Mr. Hatch said. “I don’t know of one Republican who is going to vote for this. If you can’t get 75 to 80 votes on something that is this important for this much reform, we should start over and do it on a step-by-step basis.”
The Sunday session was one of the most bitter in memory, as the pre-determined outcome of the impending vote seemed only to frustrate lawmakers on both sides as they clashed in speeches on the Senate floor.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, infuriated Democrats by suggesting that opponents of the legislation “pray” for a Democrat to miss the vote.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, gave a sharply worded speech bemoaning “the malignant and vindictive passions that have descended on the Senate.”
Below is a New York Times article on the new developments in the Senate.
December 21, 2009
Health Bill Passes Key Test in the Senate With 60 Votes
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.
The roll was called shortly after 1 a.m., with Washington still snowbound after a weekend blizzard, and the Senate voted on party lines to cut off a Republican filibuster of a package of changes to the health care bill by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.
The vote was 60 to 40 — a tally that is expected to be repeated four times as further procedural hurdles are cleared in the days ahead, and then once more in a dramatic, if predictable, finale tentatively scheduled for 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
Both parties hailed the vote as seismic.
Democrats said it showed them poised to reshape the health system after decades of failed attempts.
“Health care in America ought to be a right, not a privilege,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. “Since the time of Harry Truman, every Congress, Republican and Democrat, every president, Democrat and Republican, have at least thought about doing this. Some actually tried.”
Republicans said that the bill was fatally flawed and that voters would retaliate against Democrats at the polls in November.
“It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.
Mr. Alexander added, “Our friends on the Democratic side seem determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission toward a historic mistake, which will be bad for the Democrats, I am convinced, but unfortunately even much worse for our country.”
And each side blamed the other for the extraordinary series of votes — at dawn Saturday, after midnight Monday, at dawn again on Tuesday, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday and finally on Christmas Eve, when most Americans will be sequestered for the holiday.
The Democrats charged the Republicans with obstinately throwing every procedural obstacle in their way, including filibusters and the full 30 hours of debate allowed under the rules after each filibuster is broken by a vote of 60 senators.
The Republicans charged the Democrats with recklessly rushing to adopt a dizzyingly complex 2,700-page bill that would affect virtually every single American, and would reshape one-sixth of the nation’s economy at a cost of $871 billion over 10 years.
“If the Republicans want to exercise every single right they have under the rules, they can keep us here until Christmas Eve, no doubt about it,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. “But to what end, I ask? To what end? We’re going to have the vote at 1 a.m. that requires 60 votes, and then why stay here until Christmas Eve to do what they know we’re going to do?”
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he and his colleagues had a duty to fight until the last minute.
“There is nothing inevitable about this,” Mr. Cornyn said. “The only thing I think inevitable about it is in the light of the unpopularity of what is being jammed down the throats of the American people, there will be a day of accounting. We don’t know when that day of accounting will be. Perhaps the first day of accounting will be Election Day 2010.”
Adoption of the legislation is not a certainty.
The Senate bill, once completed, must be reconciled with a bill adopted last month by the House, and there are substantial differences between the two. The House measure, for instance, includes a government-run health insurance plan, or public option, that was dropped from the Senate bill.
The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has said the House would not just accept the Senate bill. And some Senate Democrats have warned that they could turn against the bill if changes made during negotiations with the House are not to their liking.
Given the late hour, the White House did not issue a statement after the Senate vote.
The health care legislation, which President Obama, has called his top domestic priority, seeks to extend health benefits to more than 30 million people who are currently uninsured. The bill would require nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance, or pay financial penalties for failing to do so, and it would provide federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans buy private coverage.
About half of the people who would gain coverage, some 15 million, would do so through a broad expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income Americans, and growth in the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
To pay for the new coverage, the bill would impose an array of fees and taxes, including an increase in the payroll tax for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 and a new excise tax on high-cost insurance polices. The bill also calls for major reductions in government spending, by slowing the growth of Medicare.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the $871 billion cost of the bill would be more than offset by the new revenues and cuts in spending, so that it would reduce future federal budget deficits by $132 billion between 2010 and 2019.
The outcome of the Monday morning vote was effectively decided on Saturday, when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, the last hold-out, announced that he would support the bill and Mr. Reid unveiled his final “manager’s” package of changes. Mr. Reid’s amendment included provisions aimed at winning over Mr. Nelson and others. Republicans derided the changes as akin to bribery.
On Sunday, any lingering doubts were put to rest. Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, who voted in favor of several Republican amendments to the health care bill issued a statement saying he would support the measure. And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who had been in intense talks with the White House, issued a statement saying she would vote no.
But the late-night session was not without drama, thanks to the tremendous snowstorm on Saturday that buried much of the Northeast, and caught some senators away from Washington with limited travel options. Because Amtrak was experiencing severe delays, a government plane had to be sent to retrieve Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrats.
Because the Democrats nominally control the votes of 60 senators — 58 Democrats and two independents aligned with them — which is the precise number needed to overcome filibusters, the absence of even one lawmaker would have changed the outcome of the vote and would probably have forced Democrats to miss their deadline of adopting the health care legislation by Christmas.
The most senior senator, Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, who turned 92 years old last month and uses a wheelchair, was invoked by both sides as a victim of the parliamentary warfare that has the Senate convening at all hours of the day and night.
The 1 a.m. Monday vote was on a motion to cut off debate on Mr. Reid’s manager’s package. A simple majority vote to approve the package is scheduled for roughly 7 a.m. on Tuesday.
The middle-of-the night session had a surreal quality to it. The chaplain, Barry C. Black, who opened the contentious Sunday session of the Senate with a prayer, did so again at 12:01 a.m. to officially begin a new legislative day.
For many Democrats, the landmark vote summoned the memory of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a champion of universal health care for his entire career, but who died in August before achieving that goal.
Mr. Kennedy’s widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, sat in the front row of the spectator gallery to watch the vote. Seated behind her was the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, and the director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle.
“The historic moment before us is the easiest choice and perhaps the most historic vote we may ever cast as United States senators,” said Senator Paul G. Kirk, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was named to fill Mr. Kennedy’s seat. “Is this a bill of real reform that Ted Kennedy would champion and vote for? Absolutely, yes. Ted Kennedy knew real reform when he saw it, and so do I.”
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, who was one of Mr. Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate and who worked with him on many bipartisan health care bills over the years, said Democrats had failed to live up to Mr. Kennedy’s spirit of cooperation.
“The historic blizzard in Washington yesterday was a perfect symbol of the anger and frustration brewing,” Mr. Hatch said. “I don’t know of one Republican who is going to vote for this. If you can’t get 75 to 80 votes on something that is this important for this much reform, we should start over and do it on a step-by-step basis.”
The Sunday session was one of the most bitter in memory, as the pre-determined outcome of the impending vote seemed only to frustrate lawmakers on both sides as they clashed in speeches on the Senate floor.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, infuriated Democrats by suggesting that opponents of the legislation “pray” for a Democrat to miss the vote.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, gave a sharply worded speech bemoaning “the malignant and vindictive passions that have descended on the Senate.”
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
6:42 AM
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Key Health Care Vote In U.S. Senate Tonight at Midnight
For those of you following the progress of the health care reform bill in the U.S. Senate, there will be a key vote tonight at 12 a.m. CT/ 1 a.m. ET.
As we told you yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released his manager's amendment to the health care reform bill, and announced that he has secured the necessary 60 votes to pass it.
At midnight (central standard time) tonight, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment, the so-called "manager's amendment".
If there are 60 votes for the vote tonight, Democrats in the Senate will likely have the 60 votes to finally pass the bill. Because of procedural delays that Republicans are implementing, the final vote on the entire bill will likely occur on Christmas Eve.
You can follow tonight's debate on CSPAN or online at http://www.c-span.org.
As we told you yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released his manager's amendment to the health care reform bill, and announced that he has secured the necessary 60 votes to pass it.
At midnight (central standard time) tonight, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the Reid-Baucus-Dodd-Harkin amendment, the so-called "manager's amendment".
If there are 60 votes for the vote tonight, Democrats in the Senate will likely have the 60 votes to finally pass the bill. Because of procedural delays that Republicans are implementing, the final vote on the entire bill will likely occur on Christmas Eve.
You can follow tonight's debate on CSPAN or online at http://www.c-span.org.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
9:30 PM
Friday, December 18, 2009
Texas House Democratic Leaders Endorse Bill White for Governor
Reps. Coleman, Dunnam, Gallego Issue Statements of Support
AUSTIN – Rep. Garnet Coleman of Houston, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, and Rep. Pete Gallego of Alpine endorsed Bill White for Governor today. The three Texas House Democratic leaders issued the following joint statement of support:
We are excited to partner with Bill White in his campaign to bring leadership to our state and meet Texas’ tough economic challenges. In Rick Perry’s decade of failure, our state’s budget has given away millions in special interest hand-outs when we should have been investing in sensible solutions that benefit everyday Texans. Texas needs leaders who put partisanship aside and let government work for the best interests of its people, and Bill White will do that as Governor.Representative Coleman, Chair of the House Committee on County Affairs, the Legislative Study Group House Caucus, and a member of the Calendars Committee, said:
Mayor White is a fiscally responsible leader that will partner with us to wisely protect taxpayer dollars and invest in services that will lay a firm foundation for our future. The mayor shares our values and our vision for Texas, and I’m happy he’s decided to run for Governor.Representative Dunnam, Chair of the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding and Leader of the House Democratic Caucus, said:
As a Representative from Houston, I've seen Mayor White, working with the Controller and a bipartisan City Council, prepare balanced budgets with surpluses to help Houston to weather the recession.
In contrast, Governor Perry’s response to state budget crises is to recklessly cut necessary programs, squander taxpayer dollars in privatization schemes, and place the burden on Texas families with higher tuition, health care, and insurance rates. We need a hands-on manager with business experience to cut state costs in times of declining revenues by finding efficiencies without compromising services.
Texas has paid the price for Governor Perry’s politics. While accepting over $14 billion in federal stimulus funds to balance our state budget, he took a stand against assistance for unemployment insurance, tripling tax bills for small businesses.Representative Gallego, Chair of the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence and immediate past chair of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said:
His management of state agencies focuses on what’s best for his cronies and financial backers, not for the state. Mayor White knows how to balance a budget, but more importantly, he knows how to manage an organization. He’s managed the City of Houston through both fiscal and tropical storms, and he has been re-elected with percentages more than double Governor Perry’s 39%.
Our state government is lacking executive leadership. For those in the Legislature that have worked hard to find common ground and care about the future of our state, we need a governor who is able to be a leader, not just play one on TV.
Having spent years working on the state budget, I’ve seen the real effects that bad management can have on state government.
Pricing kids out of college is not a business plan for the future of Texas, but Governor Perry’s rising college tuition rates have been an added tax to middle income families. The Governor and the State Board of Education are more interested in catering to the far right wing than they are in addressing the drop out problem.
Mayor White in Houston has shown what personal leadership is, not just through government action but in organizing his community and helping bring dropouts back to school.
Governor Perry has charted a course that doesn’t invest in the future of Texas. Mayor White has the proven track record to work with members of both parties to seek and find common ground. Mayor White is the leader that Texas needs today.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
8:11 AM
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Mayor-elect Parker's Transition Team
I wanted to let you know that I've had the honor of being named one of three co-chairs to Mayor-elect Parker's transition team. I will be working alongside co-chairs Gilbert Garcia, who was the campaign chair for the Mayor-elect, and Nancy Kinder, an accomplished businesswoman who stewarded the development of Discovery Green Park.
By BRADLEY OLSON HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Dec. 17, 2009, 12:38PM
Mayor-elect Annise Parker today announced the three co-chairs of her transition team and said she would immediately turn her focus to departmental shake ups in the city's police and housing departments and Metro , as promised on the campaign trail.
"The blessing of local government is that it can never stop," Parker said, noting that she would work "hands-on" with policing issues while delegating other areas to eight committees that will be comprised of volunteers.
The committees will focus on Metro, housing department funding, contracts and personnel, relationships with other governments, neighborhood protection, permitting efficiency, public works, density and development ordinances and minority contracting.
While the transition leaders were entirely composed of strong campaign backers, each also comes to the effort with experience in the areas in which they will focus.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, one of the only area political heavyweights to endorse Parker, will lead efforts on intergovernmental relations. Coleman also has been involved in community housing issues in some of the city's tax increment reinvestment zones.
Gilbert Garcia, managing partner of an asset management firm and chair of Parker's campaign, sits on the city's municipal pension board and can attend to budgetary matters.
Dec. 17, 2009, 12:38PM
Mayor-elect Annise Parker today announced the three co-chairs of her transition team and said she would immediately turn her focus to departmental shake ups in the city's police and housing departments and Metro , as promised on the campaign trail.
"The blessing of local government is that it can never stop," Parker said, noting that she would work "hands-on" with policing issues while delegating other areas to eight committees that will be comprised of volunteers.
The committees will focus on Metro, housing department funding, contracts and personnel, relationships with other governments, neighborhood protection, permitting efficiency, public works, density and development ordinances and minority contracting.
While the transition leaders were entirely composed of strong campaign backers, each also comes to the effort with experience in the areas in which they will focus.
State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, one of the only area political heavyweights to endorse Parker, will lead efforts on intergovernmental relations. Coleman also has been involved in community housing issues in some of the city's tax increment reinvestment zones.
Gilbert Garcia, managing partner of an asset management firm and chair of Parker's campaign, sits on the city's municipal pension board and can attend to budgetary matters.
Nancy Kinder, a Republican philanthropist who played a pivotal role in the creation of Discovery Green Park, will focus on quality of life issues. Kinder, a fund-raiser for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's campaign to unseat Gov. Rick Perry and wife of billionaire pipeline mogul Rich Kinder, also was a major campaign donor.
"They are there to help me cast the net widely," Parker said.
There is not a "short list" of potential replacements for Police Chief Harold Hurtt, she said, before adding: "I will be, I hope, meeting with Chief Hurtt before he leaves."
Hurtt, who donated to Parker opponent Gene Locke, also has indicated he plans to meet with her before he departs Dec. 30.
During the campaign, Parker pledged to replace Hurtt and "take apart" the police department. She has said recently that those plans will include bringing a decentralized focus to policing that may employ different strategies that vary by neighborhood.
As she did immediately after election, Parker called on volunteers to be involved in improving the city, a strategy that could bring some of the power of the more than 2,000 people who helped with her campaign to bear on her key initiatives.
"There is no exclusion, only inclusion, in this transition," Coleman said.
A surprise in the news conference came when Parker invoked the Ashby High Rise controversy when she said her team would examine whether tighter planning ordinances or deed restriction enforcement could be better used to protect neighborhoods while still maintaining Houston's development-friendly environment.
Her inauguration will be at Discovery Green on Jan. 4, she said.
"They are there to help me cast the net widely," Parker said.
There is not a "short list" of potential replacements for Police Chief Harold Hurtt, she said, before adding: "I will be, I hope, meeting with Chief Hurtt before he leaves."
Hurtt, who donated to Parker opponent Gene Locke, also has indicated he plans to meet with her before he departs Dec. 30.
During the campaign, Parker pledged to replace Hurtt and "take apart" the police department. She has said recently that those plans will include bringing a decentralized focus to policing that may employ different strategies that vary by neighborhood.
As she did immediately after election, Parker called on volunteers to be involved in improving the city, a strategy that could bring some of the power of the more than 2,000 people who helped with her campaign to bear on her key initiatives.
"There is no exclusion, only inclusion, in this transition," Coleman said.
A surprise in the news conference came when Parker invoked the Ashby High Rise controversy when she said her team would examine whether tighter planning ordinances or deed restriction enforcement could be better used to protect neighborhoods while still maintaining Houston's development-friendly environment.
Her inauguration will be at Discovery Green on Jan. 4, she said.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
1:10 PM
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Families USA Report on Benefits to Texas from Health Insurance Reform
Families USA released a report analyzing how the Senate health insurance reform legislation will affect Americans. The findings: Texas is projected to have some of the largest gains in the number of residents with health insurance, with 4,059,000 more residents being insured by 2019. Nationally, 31 million more Americans will have health insurance.
National health insurance reform will provide stability and security for those who are already insured, end some of the insurance industry's worst practices, and make health coverage more affordable for working families while simultaneously reducing our federal deficit.
Texans cannot afford inaction.
As the Senate health insurance reform bill continues to change, you can be sure I will continue to keep you informed.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
12:56 PM
Monday, December 14, 2009
Annise Parker Elected Mayor of Houston
Ronald Green, City Controller
Stephen Costello, City Council at Large Position 1
Sue Lovell, City Council at Large Position 2
Jolanda Jones, City Council at Large Position 5
Brenda Stardig, City Council District A
Al Hoang, City Council District F
Larry Marshall, HISD Board President
Anna Eastman, HISD District 1
These individuals will join those elected in the general election, which include:
Jarvis Johnson, City Council District B
Anne Clutterbuck, City Council District C
Wanda Adams, City Council District D
Michael Sullivan, City Council District E
Oliver Pennington, District G
Ed Gonzalez, City Council District H
James Rodriguez, City Council District I
Stephen Costello, City Council at Large Position 1
Melissa Noriega, City Council at Large Position 3
Clarence "C. O." Bradford, City Council at Large Position 4
Best of luck to our city leaders. We will work together and move our city forward.
Budget cuts, new police chief top Parker's agenda
By BRADLEY OLSON
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Dec. 14, 2009, 6:55AM
Mayor-elect Annise Parker did not mince words in her first public appearances Sunday, laying out an aggressive agenda for her inaugural term in office while promising to say “no” to “a little bit of everybody” as she takes over for Mayor Bill White.
“One of the reasons I'm not having that big, excited, happy feeling is that there is a lot of work to be done, not because there are problems undone with the current administration, but because the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves are very, very fluid,” she said in a wide-ranging interview with the Houston Chronicle.
“I'm going to be the mom telling you to eat your vegetables and you don't get dessert. I'm trying to make sure you have enough food to eat.”
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Dec. 14, 2009, 6:55AM
Mayor-elect Annise Parker did not mince words in her first public appearances Sunday, laying out an aggressive agenda for her inaugural term in office while promising to say “no” to “a little bit of everybody” as she takes over for Mayor Bill White.
“One of the reasons I'm not having that big, excited, happy feeling is that there is a lot of work to be done, not because there are problems undone with the current administration, but because the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves are very, very fluid,” she said in a wide-ranging interview with the Houston Chronicle.
“I'm going to be the mom telling you to eat your vegetables and you don't get dessert. I'm trying to make sure you have enough food to eat.”
The seven-time elected official — who will finish her third term as controller before being inaugurated next month — said she spent Sunday morning speaking with White and laying the groundwork for her transition team, which has been allotted office space near senior city officials. She declined to name specific members of that team, except to say that Gilbert Garcia, her campaign chairman, and state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, are heading up the effort.
Several seasoned City Hall insiders said the next few months will be largely focused on putting in place a team of advisers and getting up to speed on the methods White has used to manage the budget in a dour financial climate. Senior city department heads have prepared detailed briefings and memos for incoming Parker staff this week.
But Parker is not waiting around for advice. She said repeatedly that she plans to “leave it all on the table” in her efforts to bring lasting change to the city, noting that she does not aspire to higher office.
Her ideas for budget cuts, better policing and other issues seemed well formed in her mind, and she appeared to be under no illusions about the wide array of challenges she will inherit.
Budget
The first, the one that will permeate all the others, is the budget, which has been challenging enough to take up most of White's last year in office. The city continues to have a $3 million shortfall, according to Parker's latest finance report, one that has just grown with the need to audit the Houston Police Department's fingerprinting unit, a contract that may cost several million dollars.
Several seasoned City Hall insiders said the next few months will be largely focused on putting in place a team of advisers and getting up to speed on the methods White has used to manage the budget in a dour financial climate. Senior city department heads have prepared detailed briefings and memos for incoming Parker staff this week.
But Parker is not waiting around for advice. She said repeatedly that she plans to “leave it all on the table” in her efforts to bring lasting change to the city, noting that she does not aspire to higher office.
Her ideas for budget cuts, better policing and other issues seemed well formed in her mind, and she appeared to be under no illusions about the wide array of challenges she will inherit.
Budget
The first, the one that will permeate all the others, is the budget, which has been challenging enough to take up most of White's last year in office. The city continues to have a $3 million shortfall, according to Parker's latest finance report, one that has just grown with the need to audit the Houston Police Department's fingerprinting unit, a contract that may cost several million dollars.
White said he has left behind a detailed draft budget for 2010 that will not “compromise city services.” The new mayor will face several constraints if lower-than-anticipated property tax appraisals come in next year and the fallout continues in municipal bond markets from the Wall Street meltdown last year.
Parker is acutely aware of what she called a “serious underfunding” problem in the city pensions and said she would continue with several initiatives already under way that seek to save money in payroll management and the combined utility system.
While she ruled out layoffs or employee furloughs, Parker said she intends to make cuts.
“We are going to have to cut spending in the city of Houston, and to maintain a level of services and cut spending at the same time is going to be very difficult,” she said.
Police
The most pronounced changes in a Parker administration may come in the Houston Police Department, which she routinely called out for having a 40 percent budgetary increase in the past six years without adding any new police officers.
She first intends to name a new police chief from within HPD “who understands that we can't keep doing things in the same way.” Parker reiterated her intent to “shake up” the department and “take apart old and outmoded ways of thinking,” and relying more on technology and decentralizing police work.
Parker is acutely aware of what she called a “serious underfunding” problem in the city pensions and said she would continue with several initiatives already under way that seek to save money in payroll management and the combined utility system.
While she ruled out layoffs or employee furloughs, Parker said she intends to make cuts.
“We are going to have to cut spending in the city of Houston, and to maintain a level of services and cut spending at the same time is going to be very difficult,” she said.
Police
The most pronounced changes in a Parker administration may come in the Houston Police Department, which she routinely called out for having a 40 percent budgetary increase in the past six years without adding any new police officers.
She first intends to name a new police chief from within HPD “who understands that we can't keep doing things in the same way.” Parker reiterated her intent to “shake up” the department and “take apart old and outmoded ways of thinking,” and relying more on technology and decentralizing police work.
“New York and Los Angeles have a decentralized model that really pushes accountability down to the neighborhood level,” she said. “Every neighborhood in the city of Houston, every area in the city of Houston, has a different set of public safety problems and potentially different public safety solutions. Let's think about how we do policing at a much more granular level with the authority and the responsibility pushed down more to the men and women on the street.”
Style
If her first set of public appearances were any indication, Parker looks to be just as frank a mayor as she was a campaigner. She called her runoff opponent, former City Attorney Gene Locke, “a rookie candidate who made rookie mistakes” and indicated that some statements made by groups who opposed her, such as the Houston Police Officers Union, may not be set aside that easily.
“I don't have any problem with anyone who supported one of my opponents because they believe that person was the best candidate,” she said. “I do have some problems with some of the rhetoric that was thrown around in the runoff, particularly late in the campaign from a number of different sources, and some of that is going to have to be fixed by the people who put it out there.”
In leadership style, Parker signaled what could potentially be a major shift from White, who rarely brought a matter for a City Council vote if the body was divided.
“I am a consensus builder,” she said. “I pick my battles carefully, but I am not afraid of a fight, and I am not afraid of an 8-7 vote on City Council if that's what it takes to advance the ball down the field.”
Style
If her first set of public appearances were any indication, Parker looks to be just as frank a mayor as she was a campaigner. She called her runoff opponent, former City Attorney Gene Locke, “a rookie candidate who made rookie mistakes” and indicated that some statements made by groups who opposed her, such as the Houston Police Officers Union, may not be set aside that easily.
“I don't have any problem with anyone who supported one of my opponents because they believe that person was the best candidate,” she said. “I do have some problems with some of the rhetoric that was thrown around in the runoff, particularly late in the campaign from a number of different sources, and some of that is going to have to be fixed by the people who put it out there.”
In leadership style, Parker signaled what could potentially be a major shift from White, who rarely brought a matter for a City Council vote if the body was divided.
“I am a consensus builder,” she said. “I pick my battles carefully, but I am not afraid of a fight, and I am not afraid of an 8-7 vote on City Council if that's what it takes to advance the ball down the field.”
Transportation
The Metropolitan Transit Agency of Harris County, she said, is another governmental body due for a shake-up. As mayor, she will appoint five of Metro's nine board members and will, to a great extent, be able to control its direction.
Parker said public skepticism and concerns about Metro have come about largely because of the difficulties the agency has faced as it expanded to include light rail, push commuter rail and fight over funding with large amounts of money at stake.
Add to that six years without a new light rail line “and the way Metro moved forward in terms of planning the new routes and working their way through neighborhoods,” the agency has “left a lot of anger and bruised feelings” that must be dealt with immediately, she said.
“Metro could have done a much better job of openness, transparency, accountability.”
Other issues
While that may seem like a full plate, Parker will juggle numerous other major issues that will have to be dealt with early and often in her administration, including revamping the city's housing department, the redistricting of City Council districts based on the 2010 census, a commission appointed by White that could recommend changing term limits, a new soccer stadium and a proposal for a new “joint processing center,” or jail facility, with Harris County.
bradley.olson@chron.com
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
2:59 PM
Friday, December 11, 2009
Seeds of racism planted today grow forests of hatred tomorrow. We need to nip it in the bud.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."
-Lee Atwater
-Lee Atwater
At his deathbed , before dying of tumors, Lee Atwater proclaimed, "I was wrong to follow the meanness of Conservatism. I should have been trying to help people instead of take advantage of them. I don't hate anyone anymore. For the first time in my life I don't hate somebody. I have nothing but good feelings toward people. I've found Jesus Christ – It's that simple. He's made a difference."
Mailpiece by political consultant Allen Blakemore, from 2008.
Signs at a Tea Party rally, from November 2009.
Hatred Begets Hatred
When consultants and politicians resort to hatred and bigotry to spread their message, it causes great harm to our public discourse. The above mailpiece by Allen Blakemore, a consultant to Dr. Steven Hotze, sought to incite racial fears in an attempt to drive down support for Democratic candidates. A year later, people were marching in front of the State Capitol threatening bloodshed. Leaders need to take responsibility for their words and actions, and refuse to associate in any way with others who seek to tear our country down by exploiting fear and hatred.
Below is an article from the Houston Chronicle's Houston Politics blog that ran yesterday (you can see the above mail piece by clicking here, the tea party photograph was taken by my staff).
All Texans should recognize that hateful and bigoted politics have no place in our city government, state government or anywhere else.
Below is an article from the Houston Chronicle's Houston Politics blog that ran yesterday (you can see the above mail piece by clicking here, the tea party photograph was taken by my staff).
All Texans should recognize that hateful and bigoted politics have no place in our city government, state government or anywhere else.
December 10, 2009
Coleman calls for Locke to repudiate Hotze
Texas Rep. Garnet Coleman today called on Gene Locke to make a stand against bigotry by fully repudiating the authors of an anti-gay mailer.
The mailer by conservative activist Steven Hotze targets Annise Parker and six other city office candidates for their endorsement by a gay and lesbian political action committee.
Should Locke not repudiate Hotze by Saturday, Coleman said in a news conference in his office, "I think this is certainly a legitimate reason to not vote for a candidate."
Coleman has endorsed Parker, but calls Locke a good friend.
Locke has said he has not rejected Hotze's endorsement because it is based on something other than his opponent's orientation.
Coleman called that "a total copout" and "lawyer talk."
Coleman said Hotze's mailer is part of a long history of pandering to bigotry descended from George Wallace and Lee Atwater. Coleman distributed packets that included quotations from the late Alabama governor and George H.W. Bush operative along with photos from recent Tea Party events featuring Confederate flags and a sign that reads "We will take our nation back with bloodshed as a last resort."
"Gene said everything he has to say about it in his opening remarks during the debate last night. Gene had a press conference today with his broad coalition of supporters that included Democrats, Republicans, Independents, labor and business. Gene and his supporters urged Houstonians to vote on Saturday so that Gene Locke can unite the city and make it better and safer," said Kim Devlin, senior adviser to the Locke campaign. "It is unfortunate, and a bit desperate, that Annise Parker and her supporters only want to cast stones and launch attacks instead of encouraging Houstonians to participate in the democratic process."
Posted by Chris Moran at December 10, 2009 02:25 PM
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
8:43 AM
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Medicare Buy In For Older Americans
As I mentioned in an email earlier today, it appears that a compromise on the health care bill is taking shape in the United States Senate. Apart from a triggered public option and exchanges run by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM), one of the more intriguing developments has to do with an expansion of the Medicare program.
Currently, Medicare, a government run health insurance program, efficiently provides much needed services for Americans over 65. The new proposal in the Senate would lower the age floor to 55, and allow individuals to "buy in" to the system. During the last session, I authored a bill that would have created a "buy in" program for the Children's Health Insurance Program that attracted widespread, bipartisan support in the Texas Legislature until Governor Perry and the Republican leadership killed it.
Expanding coverage through Medicare is an excellent way to provide coverage to a large population of our country that is particularly prone to experiencing problems with coverage. Back in early November, I wrote an op-ed in the Texas Tribune that addressed this specific issue:
"Statistics tell a story, and being first in the nation for the number of uninsured says that there are leaders in Texas unwilling to provide healthcare to their constituents. Twenty-five percent of women aged 55-64 are uninsured. Many, who are often widows or divorced with no assistance, are waiting for Medicare to kick in on their 65th birthday to bring them the security of having health insurance once again."
I applaud the Senate for taking steps to ensure older Americans have coverage available to them. As the Senate fleshes out the details on the new compromise, we'll pass along more updates.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
3:59 PM
Annette's Story: Pre-Existing Condition Kept Me From Affordable Coverage
Below is another story we received about a Texan who has first hand experience with the worst practices of the insurance industry. If you have a story, please be sure to send it in through email or through my Facebook page. We'll read them, and if you'd like your story shared, we'll make sure to include it on our website or in a future email.
A home health care worker, Annette is a ten-year breast cancer survivor. When she came back to work ten years ago after receiving treatment for breast cancer, she discovered her employer had reclassified her as a part-time employee, disqualifying her for health insurance from work.
After a long search full of denials due to a pre-existing condition or unaffordable premiums well over $1000 a month, she found private insurance, for which she has paid $600 a month for the past eight years. But when her husband recently became ill, she found her insurance saddled her with $6000 in medical bills that it would not cover. She has been searching for a better health insurance policy for the past year, and contacted my office about a company she saw on television offering a family policy for $330 a month.
My office researched the company, the Health Care Credit Union Association, only to discover astoundingly low coverage the company provided, including a maximum amount of coverage of $300 per person per year for emergency room stays or $1250 for surgery per person per year.
Annette’s experience proves that the market isn’t working to provide access to quality, affordable health insurance; with a plan like this, Annette would be underinsured the minute she signed the dotted line. She is currently applying for health benefits with the Harris County Hospital District, which offers sliding scale coverage for people who are uninsured looking for affordable health coverage.
Annette’s case illustrates many of the problems with our current health care system and the need for real reform. Health reform legislation will end denials for pre-existing conditions, lower premium costs, end the practice of kicking people off of their insurance due to their illnesses and guarantee insurance is there when you need it.
A home health care worker, Annette is a ten-year breast cancer survivor. When she came back to work ten years ago after receiving treatment for breast cancer, she discovered her employer had reclassified her as a part-time employee, disqualifying her for health insurance from work.
After a long search full of denials due to a pre-existing condition or unaffordable premiums well over $1000 a month, she found private insurance, for which she has paid $600 a month for the past eight years. But when her husband recently became ill, she found her insurance saddled her with $6000 in medical bills that it would not cover. She has been searching for a better health insurance policy for the past year, and contacted my office about a company she saw on television offering a family policy for $330 a month.
My office researched the company, the Health Care Credit Union Association, only to discover astoundingly low coverage the company provided, including a maximum amount of coverage of $300 per person per year for emergency room stays or $1250 for surgery per person per year.
Annette’s experience proves that the market isn’t working to provide access to quality, affordable health insurance; with a plan like this, Annette would be underinsured the minute she signed the dotted line. She is currently applying for health benefits with the Harris County Hospital District, which offers sliding scale coverage for people who are uninsured looking for affordable health coverage.
Annette’s case illustrates many of the problems with our current health care system and the need for real reform. Health reform legislation will end denials for pre-existing conditions, lower premium costs, end the practice of kicking people off of their insurance due to their illnesses and guarantee insurance is there when you need it.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
9:25 AM
Dispatch from DC and Progress in the Senate
I am in Washington D.C. to meet with members of Congress about health care reform and ensure that Texas families receive the coverage they need and deserve at an affordable price.
As you may know, the Senate has been debating the healthcare bill every day for the last nine days, including Saturday and Sunday. New developments in a compromise between moderates and progressives were reached last night, I've included an article below from the NY Times with more information. I'm encouraged that the Senate is carrying on the momentum and moving forward with a bill to pass out of their chamber.
If the Senate passes a bill, it then goes back to the House of Representatives, where House members can either agree with the Senate changes and send it to the President or go to a conference committee to iron out the differences with the Senate. We will keep you informed of the progress of the bill now that it appears that a compromise has been reached.
The New York Times
December 9, 2009
Reid Says Deal Resolves the Impasse on the Public Option
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said Tuesday night that he and a group of 10 Democratic senators had reached “a broad agreement” to resolve a dispute over a proposed government-run health insurance plan, which has posed the biggest obstacle to passage of sweeping health care legislation.
Mr. Reid refused to provide details. Other senators said the tentative agreement would sideline but not kill the “public option” championed by President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress.
Under the agreement, people ages 55 to 64 could “buy in” to Medicare. And a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national health benefit plans, similar to those offered to federal employees, including members of Congress.
If these private plans did not meet certain goals for making affordable coverage available to all Americans, Senate Democratic aides said, then the government itself would offer a new insurance plan, somewhat like the “public option” in the bill Mr. Reid unveiled three weeks ago.
In announcing the agreement, Mr. Reid was apparently trying to create a sense of momentum for the health care legislation, which has been on the Senate floor for nine days, with no immediate end in sight.
The White House praised the announcement. “Senators are making great progress, and we’re pleased that they’re working together to find common ground,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.
The majority leader has not briefed the 60-member Senate Democratic caucus on the agreement, and liberals may have reservations. “I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. “We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars.”
Even senior members of the party said late Tuesday that they did not know if an agreement had been reached. “I have no idea,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader.
While refusing to provide any specifics, Mr. Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said: “Insurance companies will certainly have more competition. The American people will certainly have more choices.”
A bill approved last month by the House calls for a government-run health plan. So even if Senate Democrats reach consensus and pass their bill, they would not have the last word.
Mr. Reid’s comments came a few hours after the Senate rejected a proposal to ban coverage of abortion by health plans that would insure millions of Americans under the Democrats’ bill. The vote was 54 to 45.
Two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, joined with 50
Democrats and two independents to kill the proposal. Seven Democrats joined 38 Republicans in support of the ban.
Mr. Reid said he would ask the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of the ideas devised by the group of 10 senators — five liberals and five centrists. Lawmakers often revise their proposals in the light of analysis by the budget office.
The American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association expressed concern about the proposed Medicare expansion. They told Congress that Medicare payments were often inadequate to cover their costs.
AARP, the lobby for older Americans, endorsed an earlier proposal to let some people 55 to 64 “buy in” to Medicare, with subsidies to help pay premiums. But it said it did not know enough about the new initiative to take a position.
Democrats are trying to find a middle ground on the so-called public option, abortion and other contentious issues so they can attract the 60 votes necessary to move the bill forward, either by holding together all 58 Democrats and the two independents aligned with them or by attracting support from one or two Republicans like Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins to offset any defections in their ranks.
While advocates of abortion rights hailed the Senate’s rejection of the stringent restrictions on abortion, the vote is unlikely to be the final word on how the issue is dealt with in the health bill.
“This is the first thing we’ve won in years,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. “A majority saw it was not right to say that a woman could not pay for abortion or abortion coverage herself if her insurance company received any federal dollars.”
The health care bill would provide federal subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people buy insurance. The anti-abortion proposal, offered as an amendment by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, would have barred any health plan bought even partly with federal subsidies from covering the procedure.
Just hours before passing its version of health care legislation on
Nov. 7, the House adopted an amendment nearly identical to the one rejected Tuesday by the Senate. Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said the restrictions were “the most crushing blow we have seen to reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade,” the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
The Senate action complicates the outlook for approval of the legislation. Mr. Nelson said, “I don’t want to be stubborn or close-minded,” but he hinted that with the defeat of his amendment, he could not support the overall bill.
The normally more liberal House now has language in its bill that is more conservative, on abortion, than that of the normally more conservative Senate.
The Senate and House bills are similar in some respects. Insurers would not be required or forbidden to cover abortion. But, the bills say, across the country, the government would have to ensure that there is at least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does not.
The secretary of health and human services would decide whether a proposed new government insurance plan would cover abortion. If an insurer covers abortion, it could not use federal money to pay for the procedure. It could use only premiums paid by subscribers and would have to keep the money separate from subsidies received from the federal government.
Opponents of abortion describe this bookkeeping arrangement as a sham. “It’s a shell game,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.
The anti-abortion amendment offered by Mr. Nelson, like the House version proposed by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, said no federal money could be “used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,” except in case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.
Under the amendment, people who received federal insurance subsidies could not buy coverage from any health plan that provides abortions. They could use their own money to buy “separate supplemental coverage for abortions.”
In allowing some health plans to cover elective abortions, Mr. Nelson said, “the Senate bill goes against public opinion.”
Mr. Hatch said rejection of the anti-abortion amendment meant “there will be more people opposed” to the bill.
In the House, many supporters of abortion rights, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, voted for the bill, even though it included stringent limits on abortion. But some they might not do so again.
“Pro-choice members will be working to ensure that health care reform legislation does not restrict abortion rights beyond current law,” Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said Tuesday. “Over 40 members of the House have vowed not to support a conference report that further restricts a woman’s right to choose.”
Besides Mr. Nelson, the Democrats who voted for the ban on abortion coverage were Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, Ted Kaufman of Delaware and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
As you may know, the Senate has been debating the healthcare bill every day for the last nine days, including Saturday and Sunday. New developments in a compromise between moderates and progressives were reached last night, I've included an article below from the NY Times with more information. I'm encouraged that the Senate is carrying on the momentum and moving forward with a bill to pass out of their chamber.
If the Senate passes a bill, it then goes back to the House of Representatives, where House members can either agree with the Senate changes and send it to the President or go to a conference committee to iron out the differences with the Senate. We will keep you informed of the progress of the bill now that it appears that a compromise has been reached.
The New York Times
December 9, 2009
Reid Says Deal Resolves the Impasse on the Public Option
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said Tuesday night that he and a group of 10 Democratic senators had reached “a broad agreement” to resolve a dispute over a proposed government-run health insurance plan, which has posed the biggest obstacle to passage of sweeping health care legislation.
Mr. Reid refused to provide details. Other senators said the tentative agreement would sideline but not kill the “public option” championed by President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress.
Under the agreement, people ages 55 to 64 could “buy in” to Medicare. And a federal agency, the Office of Personnel Management, would negotiate with insurance companies to offer national health benefit plans, similar to those offered to federal employees, including members of Congress.
If these private plans did not meet certain goals for making affordable coverage available to all Americans, Senate Democratic aides said, then the government itself would offer a new insurance plan, somewhat like the “public option” in the bill Mr. Reid unveiled three weeks ago.
In announcing the agreement, Mr. Reid was apparently trying to create a sense of momentum for the health care legislation, which has been on the Senate floor for nine days, with no immediate end in sight.
The White House praised the announcement. “Senators are making great progress, and we’re pleased that they’re working together to find common ground,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director.
The majority leader has not briefed the 60-member Senate Democratic caucus on the agreement, and liberals may have reservations. “I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. “We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars.”
Even senior members of the party said late Tuesday that they did not know if an agreement had been reached. “I have no idea,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader.
While refusing to provide any specifics, Mr. Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said: “Insurance companies will certainly have more competition. The American people will certainly have more choices.”
A bill approved last month by the House calls for a government-run health plan. So even if Senate Democrats reach consensus and pass their bill, they would not have the last word.
Mr. Reid’s comments came a few hours after the Senate rejected a proposal to ban coverage of abortion by health plans that would insure millions of Americans under the Democrats’ bill. The vote was 54 to 45.
Two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, joined with 50
Democrats and two independents to kill the proposal. Seven Democrats joined 38 Republicans in support of the ban.
Mr. Reid said he would ask the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of the ideas devised by the group of 10 senators — five liberals and five centrists. Lawmakers often revise their proposals in the light of analysis by the budget office.
The American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association expressed concern about the proposed Medicare expansion. They told Congress that Medicare payments were often inadequate to cover their costs.
AARP, the lobby for older Americans, endorsed an earlier proposal to let some people 55 to 64 “buy in” to Medicare, with subsidies to help pay premiums. But it said it did not know enough about the new initiative to take a position.
Democrats are trying to find a middle ground on the so-called public option, abortion and other contentious issues so they can attract the 60 votes necessary to move the bill forward, either by holding together all 58 Democrats and the two independents aligned with them or by attracting support from one or two Republicans like Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins to offset any defections in their ranks.
While advocates of abortion rights hailed the Senate’s rejection of the stringent restrictions on abortion, the vote is unlikely to be the final word on how the issue is dealt with in the health bill.
“This is the first thing we’ve won in years,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. “A majority saw it was not right to say that a woman could not pay for abortion or abortion coverage herself if her insurance company received any federal dollars.”
The health care bill would provide federal subsidies to help low- and moderate-income people buy insurance. The anti-abortion proposal, offered as an amendment by Senators Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, would have barred any health plan bought even partly with federal subsidies from covering the procedure.
Just hours before passing its version of health care legislation on
Nov. 7, the House adopted an amendment nearly identical to the one rejected Tuesday by the Senate. Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, said the restrictions were “the most crushing blow we have seen to reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade,” the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.
The Senate action complicates the outlook for approval of the legislation. Mr. Nelson said, “I don’t want to be stubborn or close-minded,” but he hinted that with the defeat of his amendment, he could not support the overall bill.
The normally more liberal House now has language in its bill that is more conservative, on abortion, than that of the normally more conservative Senate.
The Senate and House bills are similar in some respects. Insurers would not be required or forbidden to cover abortion. But, the bills say, across the country, the government would have to ensure that there is at least one plan that covers abortion and at least one that does not.
The secretary of health and human services would decide whether a proposed new government insurance plan would cover abortion. If an insurer covers abortion, it could not use federal money to pay for the procedure. It could use only premiums paid by subscribers and would have to keep the money separate from subsidies received from the federal government.
Opponents of abortion describe this bookkeeping arrangement as a sham. “It’s a shell game,” said Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska.
The anti-abortion amendment offered by Mr. Nelson, like the House version proposed by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, said no federal money could be “used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,” except in case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.
Under the amendment, people who received federal insurance subsidies could not buy coverage from any health plan that provides abortions. They could use their own money to buy “separate supplemental coverage for abortions.”
In allowing some health plans to cover elective abortions, Mr. Nelson said, “the Senate bill goes against public opinion.”
Mr. Hatch said rejection of the anti-abortion amendment meant “there will be more people opposed” to the bill.
In the House, many supporters of abortion rights, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, voted for the bill, even though it included stringent limits on abortion. But some they might not do so again.
“Pro-choice members will be working to ensure that health care reform legislation does not restrict abortion rights beyond current law,” Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said Tuesday. “Over 40 members of the House have vowed not to support a conference report that further restricts a woman’s right to choose.”
Besides Mr. Nelson, the Democrats who voted for the ban on abortion coverage were Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Kent Conrad and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, Ted Kaufman of Delaware and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
6:25 AM
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Senate Moves Women's Health Forward
The Senate just voted for an amendment to the health insurance reform bill that is vital to women's health. The amendment, by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) would eliminate co-payments and deductibles for preventive care and screenings for women.
Some of the screenings likely to be covered include those for cervical cancer, pregnancy and postpartum depression, domestic violence, annual women's health, mammograms for women under 50, and testing for heart disease and diabetes.
This amendment, which is essential to women's health, passed with a vote of 61 to 39. Unfortunately, Texas' two Senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison, voted against the amendment.
As the health insurance bill moves forward there are many steps remaining. Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times had a simple breakdown of the different votes in the Senate that need to take place before the health insurance reform legislation is sent to the President. I've included it below.
Upcoming Senate healthcare votes
Floor debate opened this week on the proposed healthcare overhaul. Here's a look at the votes Senate Democrats would have to win before a bill goes to President Obama.
Senate Democrats will have to win several procedural votes if they are to send President Obama a healthcare bill.
AMENDMENTS
- Lawmakers from both parties are allowed to offer amendments to the healthcare bill.
- When expected: Now through Christmas or beyond.
- Votes required: Subject to negotiation, with 60 likely for more contentious amendments.
- Required to end a Republican filibuster and move to a vote on the bill.
- When expected: Just before Christmas, though possibly later.
- Votes required: 60
- Would send the Senate bill to a conference committee, where it would be reconciled with the House healthcare bill that passed two weeks ago.
- When expected: Just before Christmas, though possibly later.
- Votes required: 51
- Would end GOP filibuster of the conference report that combines the House and Senate healthcare bills.
- When expected: Sometime in January.
- Votes required: 60
- Assuming House approval, would send the legislation to President Obama for his signature.
- When expected: Sometime in January.
- Votes required: 51
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
10:54 AM
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Hotze, Blakemore and their Work in Houston
You may have heard about the latest round of attacks in the mayoral race by Dr. Steven Hotze and his political operative Allen Blakemore. I cannot believe that Gene Locke would associate himself with Hotze, Blakemore and other peddlers of hateful bigotry in Houston.
I've known Gene a long time, and I believe him when he says he's not trying to be divisive. However, it's important to see the kind of filth that has come from the people behind the latest attacks in the mayoral race. Blakemore' hate mongering campaign tactics have been widespread in our city and no candidate for office should associate themselves with him. People need to know about the kind of divisive, bigoted filth that has been developed by Allen Blakemore, and know he's behind these new attacks.
In the run up to the November 2008 elections, Allan Blakemore sent out a direct mail piece attacking a white Democratic state House candidate with darkened and ominous images attempting to evoke a response of fear and hate. Images of black and Hispanic lawmakers (including myself, Rep. Harold Dutton, Senator Mario Gallegos and President Barack Obama), several black birds resembling crows surrounded a darkened black and white picture of the Anglo Democratic candidate. The tag lines read: "Birds of a feather flock together" and "Bad Company Corrupts Good Character" (see images & article below). The same controversial direct mail piece was used in 2003 against then City Council candidate MJ Khan. Both times, the pieces were roundly denounced by various individuals and groups as racebaiting.
Year after year, Hotze and his consultant Blakemore resort to the lowest forms of hate-based campaigning. I have great respect for Gene, who has spent decades fighting against these types of divisive, hateful attacks. However, he needs to disassociate himself immediately with the likes of Steven Hotze and Allen Blakemore.
Click here to view a pdf of the piece, or scroll down. The 2008 piece featured darkened black and white photographs of Democratic candidate Joel Redmond, State Senator Mario Gallegos, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Representatives Harold Dutton and Mario Gallegos, and President Barack Obama.
The 2003 piece featured darkened black and white photographs of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, former Congressman Craig T. Washington, former Councilman Ernest McGowen, State Rep. Sylvester Turner and former Councilman Gordon Quan.
I've known Gene a long time, and I believe him when he says he's not trying to be divisive. However, it's important to see the kind of filth that has come from the people behind the latest attacks in the mayoral race. Blakemore' hate mongering campaign tactics have been widespread in our city and no candidate for office should associate themselves with him. People need to know about the kind of divisive, bigoted filth that has been developed by Allen Blakemore, and know he's behind these new attacks.
In the run up to the November 2008 elections, Allan Blakemore sent out a direct mail piece attacking a white Democratic state House candidate with darkened and ominous images attempting to evoke a response of fear and hate. Images of black and Hispanic lawmakers (including myself, Rep. Harold Dutton, Senator Mario Gallegos and President Barack Obama), several black birds resembling crows surrounded a darkened black and white picture of the Anglo Democratic candidate. The tag lines read: "Birds of a feather flock together" and "Bad Company Corrupts Good Character" (see images & article below). The same controversial direct mail piece was used in 2003 against then City Council candidate MJ Khan. Both times, the pieces were roundly denounced by various individuals and groups as racebaiting.
Year after year, Hotze and his consultant Blakemore resort to the lowest forms of hate-based campaigning. I have great respect for Gene, who has spent decades fighting against these types of divisive, hateful attacks. However, he needs to disassociate himself immediately with the likes of Steven Hotze and Allen Blakemore.
Click here to view a pdf of the piece, or scroll down. The 2008 piece featured darkened black and white photographs of Democratic candidate Joel Redmond, State Senator Mario Gallegos, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Representatives Harold Dutton and Mario Gallegos, and President Barack Obama.
The 2003 piece featured darkened black and white photographs of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, former Congressman Craig T. Washington, former Councilman Ernest McGowen, State Rep. Sylvester Turner and former Councilman Gordon Quan.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
1:19 PM
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Update on Progress of Health Insurance Reform
The Senate is currently debating the health care bill, which could take days or weeks as they consider amendments, culminating hopefully in a vote to cut off debate and vote on final passage of the bill.
According the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the majority of people who purchase health coverage through the new insurance exchanges created under health insurance reform legislation would pay substantially lower premiums costs. You can read the CBO's analysis here.
Additionally, a report by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber found that the Senate bill will reduce costs and improve the quality of benefits. Individuals who buy personal coverage will pay less for health insurance premiums and spend less on out-of-pocket costs.
Today, two specific items that the Senate is debating are an amendment by Sen Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) that deals with increased access to preventive services for women. The second item is a motion to recommit the bill back to committee by Sen. John McCain, that would set the process back drastically.
To view the text of the Senate's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, click here (pdf).
You may notice that the bill being debated right now in the Senate is HR 3590 which technically has to do with modifying the first-time homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces. This is obviously different than the HR 3962 that passed out of the House and the Senate bills from committee. The reason is that any bill that raises revenues must originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate will insert their health care bill into the homebuyers credit bill, using it as a "vehicle" to move the bill along in the process. If something happens, the original House health care bill is still in committee, and it can be used as a back up.
As usual, we'll continue to keep you informed on the progress of the bill.
posted by Rep. Garnet F. Coleman at
2:22 PM
Previous Posts
- This blog has moved
- Health Care Reform: We Got it Done
- Statistics tell a sobering story in black and whit...
- President Obama Committed to Immigration Reform
- Latest from Washington: Health Care Reform a Defic...
- Houston Chronicle & Judson Robinson III: Pass Heal...
- Homeowner Insurance Rates Continue to Rise
- Help Us Cross the Finish Line
- Lifelong Republican: Voting for Health Care Fiscal...
- Senate Has Votes to Proceed Using Reconciliation
Archives
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- July 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]