In late January, I reported on a letter that Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jared Polis (CO-2) would send to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requesting that a public option be included in the Senate version of the health insurance reform bill (a copy of the letter is here).
Because of the rules surrounding budget reconciliation, the process that would allow health care reform to move through with 51 votes, any Senator may bring up an amendment to the package. An opponent of the amendment will then likely make a point of order and argue that the amendment violates the "Byrd Rule" and is out of order. If the parliamentarian sustains the point of order, the amendment would need 60 votes to pass. But if he deems that it complies with the rules of reconciliation -- that it has a substantial effect on the budget and is germane to the legislation -- then the amendment passes with a majority vote.
Chris Bowers, who has been counting votes based on public responses and private correspondence, counts at least 45 votes for a public option. Democrats would need to find five more, with Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie. The new movement for the public option began with a letter sent from progressive House freshmen Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) and picked up speed when freshman Sen. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.) organized his colleaguesaround it. (Read the letter here.) Meanwhile, outside progressive organizations have been flooding Congress with calls from constituents, asking members to sign on to the effort.
UPDATE: Bowers sends in a more recent item of his putting the number at 51; without Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), the number would still hit the 50-threshold.
"Too many people in Washington believe that just saying you are for health care reform is a substitute for actually getting something done," said Bennet in a statement. "While some choose to stall progress under the pretext of principle, more and more Americans are losing the health care coverage they need."
Bennet has already secured the support of fellow Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), as well as more than 8,400 people who signed online through an accompanying website.
"Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public's perception of it," Bennet said in his letter to Reid. "The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market - both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules."
So, it seems that the public option is not quite dead yet.
In political news from around the Pine Tree State:
We missed this segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann this past week, in which he debunks the claims made by Republicans (including Sen. Susan Collins) regarding the Christmas Bomber and how the Obama adminsitration is treating terrorism suspects (h/t Collins Watch):
Update: On Meet the Press this morning, White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan said he briefed four GOP members of Congress on Christmas night regarding Abdulmatallab, including Sen. McConnell, and that "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me."
So in his speech to the Heritage Foundation, McConnell either forgot that briefing or he was lying to score political points. And how is it that Sen. Collins wasn't told about this by McConnell?
At the very least, McConnell let Collins put forth her response video knowing full well that he had not objected to the way the administration was handling the case. Why did he let her do it?
While delegation members generally agree the policy should be reviewed, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe take a more cautious approach than Democratic Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree.
"I support the president's proposal to have the Pentagon do an analysis of the implications and consequences of changing the policy," said Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I do believe the policy needs to be reconsidered, but I recognize there are a lot of consequences that the Pentagon wants time to figure out."
Collins acknowledged that society has changed since President Bill Clinton signed the policy into law in 1993. During that time, she said, "many of our NATO allies have revised their rules to allow openly gay men and lesbians to serve, and they have done so without it having a negative effect that opponents fear."
Pingree, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said a change is overdue. She backs a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Frankly, the sooner we do it and the less painful we make it, the better off the military is to move forward," she said. "We do everything we can to recruit young people into the military and then we spend millions of dollars discharging them - not because they have not performed their duty, but because someone 'outs' them."
Pingree said nearly 14,000 gay and lesbian soldiers have been discharged from the military and untold numbers have been lost to the armed services because they refuse to enlist because of the rule.
FireDogLake, the most excellent progressive blog, is asking its readers to nominate three incumbent representatives to be chosen the first Fire Dogs:
It's a rare breed of representative who stands up for progressive values and doesn't back down. That's why we want to choose members of Congress who aren't afraid to fight. We're calling them FDL Fire Dogs.
Two thousand people who hailed from their districts nominated 180 members of Congress for support from FDL Action PAC. Now you get to decide - who should we help?
I would urge you to support Maine's 1st District Represenative Chellie Pingree, of course. But for the other two? FDL does provide a handy chart that lists each district and how much it currently leans to the right.
VOTE HERE. Contest ends Wednesday, 10 February, at midnight.
This is huge news, and while I don't often do this, I'll just post the press release in it's entirety:
Congresswoman Chellie Pingree tonight announced that $35 million will be invested in Maine to improve the rail line between Brunswick and Portland to allow an extension of rail service to the Midcoast.
"This is a significant economic boost to Maine," Pingree said. "It will put over 200 people to work improving the rail line and bring economic development to downtown train stations in communities like Freeport and Brunswick."
Work will begin immediately on the rail line and train service to Brunswick is expected to start by the end of 2012.
Pingree has been urging Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to fund the project. In a letter to LaHood last year she wrote "the Portland North Project will have an immediate and significant economic impact throughout the northeast region."
"We've already seen how the Downeaster has created economic growth along the existing route," Pingree said tonight. "Now it's time to bring that to the Midcoast."
"This was such a competitive process," said Patricia Quinn, Executive Director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. "There were many, many requests for these grants and it's really an honor that the Maine project was chosen."
"If Maine had to borrow money to fund this project the interest costs alone would have been $18 million," Quinn said. "This announcement means Maine taxpayers are going to save millions of dollars."
Pingree said the extension of the rail line is "a natural tourism generator. Freeport is the number one tourist destination in the state."
This will fulfill the dream for an awful lot of Maine people to be able to get on the train in Midcoast Maine and ride all the way to Boston," said Wayne Davis, Chairman of Trainriders Northeast. "Nearly five million people go from the Boston area to Freeport to go shopping. That's a big market that the Downeaster can tap in to."
Recent polling from districts of freshman Democratic congressmen about health insurance reform shows the following:
* 68% of voters want a public health insurance option;
* By 5 to 1, voters want their Representative to fight to add the public option over passing the Senate bill;
* By 3 to 1, persuadable voters are less likely to vote for the local Democrat if Congress doesn't pass a public option as part of reform;
* 55% say Democrats need to do more to fight big corporations;
* 56% say Democrats haven't done enough to fulfill Obama's 2008 campaign promises;
* 52% of Democrats are less likely to vote in 2010 if Congress doesn't pass public option -- Republicans more likely.
Reps. Chellie Pingree (ME-1) and Jared Polis (CO-2) are circulating a letter that they hope their colleagues will sign, a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid requesting that the public option passed by the House be added to the Senate version of the health insurance reform bill. It reads:
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
As the Senate continues to work on health reform legislation, we strongly urge you to consider including a public option.
Here are the reasons for this request:
1) The public option is overwhelmingly popular.
A December New York Times poll shows that, despite the attacks of recent months, the American public supports the public option 59% to 29%. And a recent Research 2000 poll found 82% of people who supported President Obama in 2008 and Scott Brown for Senate last week also support the public option. Only 32% of this key constituency is in favor of the current Senate bill - with more saying it "doesn't go far enough" rather than it "goes too far."
Support for health care legislation started to fall as popular provisions like the public option were stripped out and affordability standards were watered down. The American people want us to fight for them and against special interests like the insurance industry, and it is our responsibility to show them that their voices are being heard.
2) The public option will save billions for taxpayers, speaking to the fiscally-responsible sensibilities of our constituents.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the public option will save taxpayers anywhere from $25 billion to $110 billion and will save billions more when private insurers compete to bring down premium costs. The stronger the public option, the more money it saves.
By including the public option, we can simultaneously reduce tax increases and the deficit. This is a common-sense way to temper the frustration of Americans who question whether Congress is spending their money wisely and fighting for the middle class.
3) There is strong support in the Senate for a popular public option.
It is very likely that the public option could have passed the Senate, if brought up under majority-vote "budget reconciliation" rules. While there were valid reasons stated for not using reconciliation before, especially given that some important provisions of health care reform wouldn't qualify under the reconciliation rules, those reasons no longer exist. The public option would clearly qualify as budget-related under reconciliation, and with the majority support it has garnered in the Senate, it should be included in any healthcare reform legislation that moves under reconciliation.
As Democrats forge "the path forward" on health care, we believe that passing the public option through reconciliation should be part of that path. We urge you to favorably consider our request to include a public option in the reconciliation process.
Sincerely,
Chellie Pingree
Jared Polis
Members of Congress
But Pingree and Polis need your help. They need you to contact your Member of Congress and urge them to sign onto their letter, to reflect your belief that a public option is essential to any serious attempt to reform our broken system.
Won't you make that call? The number to reach the House switchboard is 202.224.3121, or find your representative here.
In light of yesterday's ruling by the SCOTUS that corporations should not be limited in the amount of money they spend to influence public elections (and it is NOT limited to congressional races, but applies to state and even municipal elections), there is more interest in the Fair Elections Now Act, (H.R. 1826 and S. 752). The bill would create a program that is similar to the Clean Elections law here, and is modeled on it. For House elections it would:
* Be voluntary;
* Allow for unlimited number of individual contributions of $100 or less for seed money;
* Require at least 1,500 qualifying contributions between $5 - $100, for a minimum of $50,000;
* For primary elections, creates a grant of 40% of the base amount; creates a 4 to 1 matching grant for in-state contributions of $100 or less (up to 200% of the base grant); no spending limit;
* For general elections, creates a grant of 60% of the base amount and a similar 4 to 1 matching grant;no spending limit;
* Maximum public funds would contributed be $2.8 million.
(The base amount is 80% of the average spent in winning House elections over the previous two cycles.)
H.R. 1826 was introduced by Rep. John Larson, for himself and Reps. Chellie Pingree, Llyod Doggett, Jared Polis, Carol Shea-Porter, Raul Grijalva, Adam Smith, Michael Michaud, Tom Perriello, Bruce Braley, David Loebsack, Judy Chu, Rush Holt, Gerald Connolly, Jesse Jackson Jr., Melvin Watt, Peter Defazio, Danny Davis, Michael Capuano, Gene Green, Lita Lowey, David Wu, Lacy Clay, James McGovern, Peter Welch, Steve Rothman, John Yarmuth, Scott Murphy Steve Kagen, Gary Peters, Michael Arcuri, Pete Stark, Paul Hodes, Paul Tonko, Lynn Woolsey, Martin Heinrich, Marcy Kaptur. There are currently a total of 126 bipartisan cosponsors of this bill, while there are only 5 cosponsors of the Senate version (go figure).
The House Committee on House Administration held a hearing regarding H.R. 1826 on 30 July 2009 (you can find a link to the video of the hearing there), which included testimony from officials familiar with 'clean election' campaigns in states like Maine. Those testifying included Reps. John Larson, Chellie Pingree, and Walter Jones; Speaker of the Maine House Hannah Pingree; Jeffrey Garfield, Executive Director & General Counsel, Connecticut State Elections; Bradley Smith, Professor of Law, Capital University School of Law; John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, CATO Institute; and Arn Pearson, Vice President for Programs, Common Cause. It may sound like a dull topic, but the testimonies and comments from committee members are actually of interest.
With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court's conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.
Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.
As a result of Thursday's ruling, corporations have been unleashed from the longstanding ban against their spending directly on political campaigns and will be free to spend as much money as they want to elect and defeat candidates. If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We'll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.
While the Fair Elections Now Act will do nothing to stop such spending, it will place an unmistakable stigma on it. Clean Elections candidates will be able to rightly claim that they are a candidate of the people, not of monied interests.
And while conservatives are currently applauding the ruling, it will only be a matter of time before they find this spending influencing elections in their own backyard, working directly against their own interests. Of course, by then, who knows how much more beholden to corporate interests will be.
I'm not a firm believer in these sorts of polls, since they have zero scientific credibility, but will still ask you to answer it - in today's Bangor Daily News:
I mentioned earlier today that Rep. Chellie Pingree has introduced a bill that would ban a common chemical flame retardant, deca-BDE, that is found in a variety of consumer products, and now also in plastic pallets.
But at her press conference today, she announced that chemical companies agree to voluntarily stop making it.
From her press release:
This week Congresswoman Chellie Pingree introduced legislation to ban products containing deca-bromine. The Deca-bromine Elimination and Control Act (H.R. 4394) would phase out the chemical, commonly used as a flame retardant, by 2013 and require companies to use safer alternatives.
The introduction of Pingree's bill came after months of negotiations with the chemical industry and environmental groups. Then, late yesterday, after Pingree called a press conference to announce the bill, the chemical industry announced it would enter into a voluntary agreement with the EPA to stop producing Decabromine within three years.
"I am encouraged by this eleventh hour agreement and if it is followed it will achieve my primary goal with this legislation-getting Deca out of our environment. The chemical industry hasn't always lived up to voluntary agreements," Pingree said. "This bill will make sure they do. We need to make sure that the industry doesn't start using another chemical that is just as dangerous as Deca, so this bill has a provision to make sure that any alternative they come up with has to be safe.
"Children absorb the toxin not only through strollers and car seats, but household dust and even their mothers' breast milk. Since its presence has become nearly impossible to avoid, we need to ban deca's use in all products."
It is estimated that almost 100 million pounds of deca-bromine may be used in the manufacture of plastic pallets in the coming years. These plastic pallets are used primarily to transport food and deca-bromine-laden dust from plastic pallets has the potential to come into contact with food and food packaging.
In a flurry of press releases, Reps. Mike Michaud and Chellie Pingree have announced funding for a variety of projects around Maine:
Sacopee Valley Health Center will receive an $802,951 grant. The project in Porter, Maine is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1).
"This funding will allow the Sacopee Valley Health Center to reinforce its mission of providing high quality patient-centered primary and preventive health care services," Rep. Michaud said.
Before the days of the cinema, audiences were once entertained by moving panoramas-long, continuous paintings unwound off spools to reveal scenes from a story across the stage. Painted in 1851, one such piece showed the popular storyline of John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" in 62 beautiful scenes. With an 800-foot-long, 8-foot-high canvas, the panorama awed audiences as it toured the region.
Given to the Saco Museum in 1896, the piece was thought lost for 100 years, before being found in 1996. The museum then restored a quarter of the canvas, which has been exhibited across the country.
Using a $50,000 Save America's Treasures Grant, the museum will restore the remainder of the painting. It also plans to produce a video of the scenes as well as a replica of the entire piece so it can be dynamically displayed for the public as it was originally intended.
"There are only about 10 moving panoramas left in the country and this one is in the best condition," said Saco Museum Director Jessica Skwire Routhier. "These were a big deal in their time. When this piece was originally made, it was like the release of a new 'Harry Potter' movie."
Rep, Pingree said, "If we let pieces of our past fade away we lose the history that educates and enriches us," said Pingree. "These funds will go a long way toward protecting irreplaceable parts of Maine's unique legacy and allowing us to keep that legacy alive for generations to come. Only the most significant projects of the highest historical and cultural value win these grants. We should be proud of these projects and the contributions they make to American history."
Today, Congressman Mike Michaud applauded the announcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) that the Bucksport Regional Health Center will receive a $2,459,420 grant. The funding will be used for an expansion of its facility to include mental health services and chronic care patient self-management counseling services. The project in Bucksport is being funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, H.R. 1), and Michaud wrote a letter supporting the grant in November. Michaud is planning to join Bucksport Regional Health Center Executive Director John Corrigan at the White House today for a community health centers event.
"The Bucksport Regional Health Center has a strong record of providing exceptional health care services for the 26,000 underserved residents in the area," said Michaud. "This facility has been a leader at providing much needed primary care services in the community. This grant will help the health center expand and provide even more services. This project will also help create jobs and increase economic activity in the community."
In Rockland, a $300,000 grant is being awarded to the Association for Maritime Preservation to restore the Schooner J & E Riggin, built in 1927. An iconic symbol of Maine's Midcoast working waterfront, the vessel is one of only four 1920s oyster dredgers in the world and is the only one that remains a working vessel.
Funds will be used to replace fastening, planking, framing and decking so the Riggin can continue to educate passengers about North America's maritime heritage. The restoration work will be done in Midcoast Maine.
Administered by a partnership of several federal agencies, the Save America's Treasures Grant Program helps preserve naturally significant cultural artifacts and historical structures and sites.
Rep. Chellie Pingree's office released the following statement after the President had concluded his remarks on sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan:
I have great respect for the President and I know he didn't come to this decision lightly.
I was glad to hear the President talk about starting to bring troops home tonight, but I don't agree with him that we should start increasing troop levels first.
I'm very concerned with the additional costs of sending more troops. Every day I think about the number of people here in Maine who are out of work and the small businesses that are struggling to survive or expand. Maine's share in the wars we've been fighting equals more than $2.5 billion so far and given our pressing needs here at home, I don't think it's the right time to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
As members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women's access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law.
This afternoon, Willy Ritch, Communications Director for Rep. Chellie Pingree, told me that Rep. Pingree intends to sign onto this letter upon her return to Washington.
While not unexpected, it is great to see Rep. Pingree out in front of this issue. That some would restrict a woman's access to a legal procedure simply because they may be of lesser means is unconscionable, and again Rep. Pingree demonstrates her unflagging support of the rights of all women to control their own bodies.
There had been a fair amount of grumbling amongst gay rights advocates since last year's election, with many feeling that despite the hard work they gave to the Obama campaign, that the administration now sees them as a nuisance. This was compounded by the President not speaking forthrightly in favor of the NO on 1 campaign. Then add this latest revelation in the leaked email of the Treasurer of the DNC, and well...
The talk is heating up that instead of supporting that instead of supporting the Democratic Party with their time and money, gay rights advocates will instead support progressive candidates. Some may view this as an immature reaction to yet another loss, but I disagree - progressives and populists of all kinds still do not have a voice within the Democratic Party that equals their supporters.
And then look at the lack of public leadership amongst elected officials. Many members of our Legislature took a courageous stand on LD 1020, as did Gov. Baldacci. But on the Federal level, only Rep. Chellie Pingree had the courage to voice her convictions regarding equal marriage.
Hello Rep. Mike Michaud!
And while they are not Democrats, our two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, were not only mum on the issue, they refused to even provide any kind of statement about it when asked.
And we wonder why 53% of Mainers voted Yes on 1? Three-quarters of our delegation didn't think it important enough to try to influence their constituents.
I'm curious as to how Snowe, Collins, and Michaud actually voted on Question 1.
Reposted with permission of the Huffington Post - the original can be found here. I thank them, and also Rep. Pingree for being the only member of the Maine delegation to have the courage for actually taking a stand.
Tomorrow, Maine voters decide whether to repeal Maine's 4-month-old same-sex marriage law. Don't be mistaken: this is an historic election. Tomorrow Maine can become the first state in the country to support marriage equality in a statewide vote.
Two summers ago I proudly watched as my daughter, Hannah Pingree, was married in a simple ceremony in our community. Good friends of ours -- two men in a long time committed relationship who had known Hannah since she was a small child -- performed the ceremony. I'll never forget what one of them said to Hannah the day before the wedding.
"I'm so proud of you, Hannah," David said. "But I want to remind you that tomorrow you will be doing something we can't do by getting married."
The next year Hannah became Speaker of the Maine House and she, along with other legislative leaders and our governor, made Maine one of the first states in the country to make same-sex marriage legal through the legislative process. I was so proud of my daughter and her colleagues in the state capitol that day.
Maine people have a live-and-let-live philosophy, and tend to be fair and open-minded. Left to themselves, I have no doubt that they would support true marriage equality for all Maine families.
The problem is, they haven't been left to themselves.
The same forces that were behind Prop 8 in California have moved their entire operation to Maine. The anti-marriage equality effort in Maine is a carbon copy of the California effort -- including false and misleading ads intended to frighten parents and distract attention from the real issue of marriage equality. Funded primarily by the right-wing National Organization for Marriage, they have tried to convince parents that legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine will lead to "explicit" discussions of gay sex as part of a "gay friendly curriculum." For kindergartners.
The anti-marriage side has not exactly set the standard for openness and transparency. Last month they went to court to try and avoid state law that requires the names of donors to be reported. And it's been two weeks since the last campaign finance report, so we have no way of knowing how much they've raised in these final days -- but I am told that they have increased their ad buy significantly. A massive infusion from an outside group (think the Mormon Church in California's Prop 8 campaign) at the last minute wouldn't be a surprise.
The vote in Maine can go one of two ways tomorrow. It can be a victory for those who prefer fear and misinformation over honest discussion. Or it can be a victory for fairness and equality that will resonate across the country and, I guarantee, through the halls of Congress. Please help make the difference for my state by clicking here.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled a health-care reform bill Thursday that includes a government insurance option and a historic expansion of Medicaid, and seemed to have the potential to draw support from a broad range of Democratic lawmakers.
Democratic House aides said party leaders had yet to resolve long-standing disputes over provisions to prevent federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions and to block illegal immigrants from receiving benefits. But lawmakers also said there was a growing realization among Democrats from across the political spectrum that the time had arrived to compromise and move forward after weeks of internal battling.
"At the end of the day, we've got to pass something," said Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.). "The whole debate, I hope, has been about more than just therapy."
The 1,990-page bill includes a version of the "public option" preferred by moderates and raises Medicaid eligibility levels to 150 percent of the federal poverty level for all adults, a steeper increase than in earlier drafts.
In a prepared statement sent to the media, Rep. Mike Michaud had this to say:
We have an historic opportunity to pass health care reform. After months of consideration and debate in three congressional committees, House leaders laid out their bill today. While the actual language of the bill is just now being made available for the Congress and the American public to read, I am pleased that reform efforts are progressing.
We must bring stability and security to Americans who have insurance today, and affordable coverage to those who don't. We must also promote fiscally responsible reform that will not add to our debt or the skyrocketing growth in the cost of health care. The status quo is unacceptable and we must act.
One of my greatest responsibilities as a member of Congress is to always ask the question - Is this legislation good for Maine? Over the last few months, I talked to a lot of Mainers about health care reform during meetings, roundtables, and telephone town halls. Families, individuals, small businesses, and health care providers all raised specific concerns they had with various aspects of health care reform. Whether it's making sure health insurance is more affordable or that rural areas and small businesses are treated fairly, Mainers have legitimate concerns that must be addressed in a final bill. We need reform, but we need it done right and we need it to work for our state.
I have had some serious concerns with previous versions of the bill - specifically, how the cuts in Medicare would impact our seniors, home health care agencies, nursing homes and rural providers in Maine. I am also concerned about how low reimbursement rates already negatively impact our overall health care system in Maine.
I have been working hard every day to resolve these concerns, and I will closely examine this new bill to make sure that it is a good one for Maine. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to accomplish meaningful reform.
When asked why Rep. Michaud said nothing about a public option, Ed Gilman, spokesman for Rep. Michaud, emailed me:
The Congressman has always supported a public option.
Rep. Chellie Pingree also had a statement:
The health care bill introduced today takes important steps toward making quality, affordable health care available to all Americans. It will lower costs, provide more choice and reform some of the insurance industry's worst practices-like excluding people based on pre-existing conditions.
This bill includes a public option, which is essential to give consumers real choice and give the insurance companies real competition.
And the legislation introduced today will protect Medicare and Medicare recipients. Nothing in this bill cuts basic Medicare benefits. And it will close the donut hole for prescription drug prices.
An overwhelming majority of Americans want a public health insurance option. But members of Congress have received hundreds of millions in campaign contributions from health and insurance interests.The result? A big battle in Congress when the will of the American people is clear.
As Congress debated a $700 billion Wall Street bailout in October 2008, Americans cried out for Wall Street accountability. But members of Congress had campaigns to fund and were collecting campaign cash from the very special interests they were supposed to be regulating. The final bailout was great for Wall Street, less so for the public.
Whatever your top issue, progress will be slowed on all major reform until we fix a corrupt campaign finance system that gives special interests disproportionate clout in public policy. Momentum is building in Congress for a new system of "citizen-funded" congressional elections-a hybrid of public funding and Obama-style small donations. Come hear from those at the center of the fight, and learn how you can be part of it.
Joining Pingree will be Lawrence Lessig, co-founder of Change Congress; David Donnelly of Public Campaign Action Fund; and Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
You can live stream the panel and join the discussion.
One of the things most talked about at the blogger summit I attended yesterday in Pittsburgh was what is the link about gay rights and immigration reform. At first glance the two movements do not seem to have any areas of crossover, but after you read the story about Shirley Tan, her partner Jay Mercado, and their twin sons, you'll see that there is plenty. From People Magazine last April, a gay mom faces deportation:
Their twin sons were fast asleep when two men with badges rang the doorbell at 6:30 a.m. on Jan. 28. Inside their tidy suburban Pacifica, Calif., home, Jay Mercado was getting ready for work, and her wife, Shirley Tan, planned to take the boys to school. But the two men-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents-had other plans. They produced an order of deportation, and minutes later Tan was under arrest. After a day in jail Tan was sent home with an electronic ankle bracelet pending her deportation hearing. "I said, 'I am not a fugitive,'" Tan, 43, recalls through tears. "We're just a simple, happy family."
But this stay-at-home soccer mom's situation is complicated and, for the moment, dire. Despite her long relationship with Mercado-they are registered domestic partners who wed in 2004-Tan is in the U.S. illegally. This month she was ordered to appear in court with a plane ticket to the Philippines. There was an appeal, and she won a stay until April 22, but may be deported then. "Why is this happening to them?" asks Mercado's mother, Renee, 76 (Tan is her primary caretaker). "It doesn't happen often that people find this kind of love."
As Steve Ralls from Immigration Equality explained to us, Tan's deportation has been delayed until 2011, due to a private bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. But this is still temporary, and applies only to Tan. As the Advocate notes in crossing borders, there are many more binational gay couples under similar threats:
Perhaps it's no surprise that the injustice faced by Matthew, his partner, and thousands of other gay couples historically has failed to achieve a critical mass of outrage, despite persistent grassroots efforts and a series of legislative attempts to address the inequity. Most Americans simply will never find themselves falling in love and building a life with a person who is forever forced into the "Noncitizens" line at JFK. Only 6% of same-sex unmarried couples are binational, according to one study by UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute, a think tank focusing on laws regarding sexual orientation, and the affected couples who are active in lobbying for policy reforms have worked largely behind the scenes -- particularly if a nonresident partner is in the country illegally.
This year the landscape is changing. In June the Department of Health and Human Services enacted policy reforms that will bring down one long-standing barrier to immigration, a ban on HIV-positive foreign visitors (George W. Bush last year signed a bill into law approving the change but did not implement it). And in Congress two bills that would grant immigration rights to gay couples have given the issue unprecedented attention in the fractious battle over immigration reform expected to play out in the upcoming autumn legislative session. Should the bills be included in a larger immigration package (one that could ultimately include a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants), they could become a significant step for gay rights under the Obama administration. For the first time the federal government would acknowledge the rights of gays and lesbians to live in this country with their partner of choice, regardless of national origin.
There is a bill before Congress sponsored by Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 1024, S. 424) that would revise immigration law to expand who can become a citizen through marriage to a U.S. national, in this case adding "permanent partners" to the list. Both Reps. Michaud and Pingree are cosponsors of the House version.
H.R. 1024 has been rolled into another bill in its entirety. This one, sponsored by Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709), further expands the rights of foreign born children of "permanent partners" to the same level as those of foreign born husbands or wives. H.R. 2709 has now become the lead bill.
Here is the testimony delivered by Shirley Tan before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:
There is much more to follow, so please check back.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an