Lawmaker News

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a eulogy for the late Senator Daniel K. Inouye Friday at the Washington National Cathedral.
 
As the tragic events of recent days remind us, often when death visits, it comes too soon.
 
A plane crash takes a parent from us.
 
Cancer deprives us of a sibling or a friend.
 
An automobile accident steals away a child.
 
Lives are cut short. Dreams are denied.
 
Often death is troubling. We ask, “Why?”
 
Why him? Why her? Why now?
 
And although I wish I could answer those questions with authority, often the “why” of death is a mystery.
 
But in the case of Senator Daniel Inouye, there is no mystery. And although there is sadness, there is no regret.
 
Ecclesiastes 3:2 tells us, “To everything there is a season, a time to every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die.”
 
It was Daniel Inouye’s time.

When CODEPINK, MoveOn and representatives of other organizations marched into Senator Harry Reid’s D.C. office on Tuesday, December 18, they wanted a simple answer to a simple question: Does the Senator support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, such as the legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein and supported by President Obama and Vice President Biden? It would seem like a no-brainer for the Senate majority leader to fall in line with the leadership of his party in backing a modest bill that would ban the sale of weapons that are only good for mass murder. Unfortunately, Reid’s senior policy advisor Kasey Gillette was unable to give an answer.

As a longtime Senate staffer and, more recently, executive director of a legal services organization that advocated for repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” (DADT), I had the privilege of working with Senator Inouye for nearly forty years on several national policy issues -- telecommunications, maritime, tourism, transportation, and support for our troops, to name a few. He had a steady, steely hand and he invariably came through for Hawaii and for our country. After a win he might sometimes whisper to aides with satisfaction and just a twinkle in his eyes, "we got it done." But he was never one to gloat.

For him, it was about achieving the objective, rather than who was going to get credit for it.

It was more than 40 years ago when two young prosecutors, one from the biggest city in Pennsylvania and one from a smaller town in rural Vermont, came together at an annual meeting of the National District Attorneys Association in Philadelphia. Little did Arlen Specter and I know then that we would spend 30 years working together in the United States Senate, building on our bond as former prosecutors, seeking to bridge the partisan divide, and striving to find common ground on some of the most contentious issues of our time.  
 
Arlen Specter’s public service began during the Korean War. When elected to serve as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, he led landmark prosecutions against public corruption and to rid his city’s streets of some of the country’s most hardened criminals. He was a prosecutor’s prosecutor.

Arlen Specter dedicated nearly all his adult life to public service – first in the military, then as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, and last and most significantly, as a U.S. Senator representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To each of these roles, he brought his remarkable intelligence, tenacity, and energy. In the end, Arlen faithfully served the people of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the United States as a public servant for more than 40 years.
 
I had the pleasure of working with Arlen in Congress for 16 years, and I saw first-hand the dedication and intensity which characterized his service in the Senate. Arlen was a hard worker. Arlen never failed to get out front on any issue he thought was important to the voters of Pennsylvania, and he worked hard to represent his constituents and secure federal funding to address their local needs.

Arlen Specter was an important mentor and inspiration for me, and he was my friend. He was helpful to me and my family early in my career. And on one occasion, he provided a major boost for what I consider the signature achievement of my nine terms in Congress.

The long arc of Arlen Specter’s career in public service touches on most major moments in contemporary American history. Those moments required great leadership and Senator Specter always met the challenge.

You couldn’t help but be intimidated when you met Arlen Specter.

By the time I met him in the early 2000s, he was already a legend in Pennsylvania politics, the respected senior senator.

I was the mayor of Hazleton when Senator Specter came to talk about an economic development project of mine that required federal funding. Of course, I knew of his reputation as a smart, no-nonsense former prosecutor who struck fear in the hearts of certain Philadelphia Teamsters. I knew of his controversial magic bullet theory as part of the Warren Commission’s investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I knew of his reputation when it came to solving problems and finding solutions.

And he was coming to my office. I admit I was intimidated.

Pete Townshend, The Who’s famous rocker, broke nine years of silence last week on his 2003 arrest for downloading one $14 dollar child porn image. Townshend claims he downloaded the image in an effort to follow the money trail from Russian orphanages, trafficking children into pedophile rings, to British banks knowingly laundering the profits. Pete said he was trying to help protect children in what he called an “insane White Knight Syndrome.”
 
Pete Townshend is not insane. I suspect Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) might second that.

When Congress returns from recess, expect to see more made of the night time swim in the Sea of Galilee that was taken by a group of Republican Congressmen who traveled to Israel under the auspices of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. The disclosure already has provided the media, government watchdog groups and congressional detractors an opportunity to level their guns against Congress as a whole.

It is not clear if anything improper or unethical occurred. But regardless of the facts of this particular situation, what’s likely to occur is yet another call for the restriction on travel by members of Congress. And that would be unfortunate for the country.

As reflected in surveys that show the low esteem in which Congress is held, the American public not only has little respect for members of Congress but also the institution as well. It is hard to argue that it has not brought a good deal of it upon itself. But regardless of one’s opinion about this Congress, the institution is fundamental to our democracy. Yet if it were magically eliminated tomorrow, many Americans would say good riddance. Members of Congress are constantly trivialized and ridiculed. Candidates for Congress deride the institution at the same time that they seek to be elected to it. And when they are successful and arrive in Washington, they continue their campaign against the institution. 

Which brings us back to the midnight swim. The fallout of this event is likely to result in increased efforts to restrict foreign travel. Critics ask why should members of Congress travel anyway? Isn’t their business right here in America?

Artur Davis
C/O Republican National Convention
401 Channelside Drive
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear Artur,

We are writing to express our disdain over several recent comments you have made about the important issues facing voters in November, your total distortion of President Barack Obama’s record, and your complete flip-flop on certain core principles you once held dear. Given the magnitude of your recent transformation, we can only conclude that, rather than a true conversion, your actions are the result of a nakedly personal and political calculation or simmering anguish after failing to secure the Democratic nomination for governor of the State of Alabama in 2010.

Despite recent news reports that you sought advice from a Virginia political consultant about running for office as a Democrat, you currently proclaim to have switched to the Republican Party. However, in 2009 you repeatedly criticized former Representative Parker Griffith for the same act, saying, “his decision repudiates the hard work of many Democrats who sustained him during his election to two high offices.” You continued, “He leaves a party where differences of opinion are tolerated and respected to join a party that in Washington, marches in lockstep, demands the most rigid unity, and articulates no governing philosophy beyond the forceful use of the word, ‘no.’”

It’s unconscionable that you now claim Voter ID laws do not violate civil rights or suppress minority voter turnout. Yet in 2007 while still representing Alabama’s 7th congressional district, you joined then-Senator Obama in calling for the resignation of the Justice Department’s Voting Rights chief after he claimed that Voter ID laws did not hurt minorities, saying, “you can't argue that voter ID laws don't disfranchise African- Americans.”

You also may recall that less than two years ago, you routinely touted your progressive record as a member of the House of Representatives. You supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Wall Street reform bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and ending tax subsidies for oil companies. Despite voting against the final bill, you even supported major pillars of the Affordable Care Act like banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions, expanding Medicaid, and providing tax breaks to small businesses that provide health care, to name a few.

Contrary to your recent declarations, you hailed President Barack Obama as a “beacon of leadership,” touted President Obama as your “model,” and widely described the President as a friend. As a member of the House of Representatives, you supported President Obama’s agenda 95% of the time, were quoted saying “I agree with him on everything,” and repeatedly invoked President Obama in your failed gubernatorial campaign.

It is important that the American people have these important facts and draw their own conclusions about your true motivations for speaking at the Republican National Convention.

We have come to the disturbing conclusion that your recent public statements have no basis in real policy or political disagreements, but rather they stem from transparent opportunism and a personal determination to overcome failing to win the Alabama Democratic primary for Governor in 2010. We regret that you have chosen this course, but are confident that the American people see your pronouncements for what they are and come to the same disappointing conclusion of your former colleagues.

Sincerely,

Chairman Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-Mo.)
Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.)
Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-N.C.)
Rep Donna Christensen (D-VI-AL)
Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.)
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-Md.)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio)
Rep. Barbara J. Lee (D-Calif.)
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.)
Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)