The House of Representatives, with a minimum of fanfare and no pomp, passed a resolution Tuesday apologizing to black Americans for the "fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow" segregation.
The resolution did not even draw a roll-call vote but squeezed through by a voice vote on what is called "the suspension calendar," a device to speed along noncontroversial legislation to which neither party objects.
It was sponsored by a white Democrat from Tennessee, Rep. Steve Cohen, who faces a primary Aug. 7 in his heavily black district against a black challenger, airline lawyer Nikki Tyler.
Slavery was abolished for part of the United States in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln's proclamation, and that was reinforced by federal laws, and remnants of slavery were dealt with by amendments to the federal Constitution through the mid-1960s.
At the time of the country's founding, slavery was found in every former colony and region, not only in the South but in New York City, where slave ships were fitted out, and in Providence and Newport, R.I., where slave pens were maintained.
The bill was sponsored by 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but only handful of the members have endorsed Cohen's reelection. The Senate has yet to act on a similar proposal by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
In Chicago on Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, stopped short of endorsing an official apology to American Indians, but urged the nation to acknowledge its treatment of certain racial groups.
Speaking to a convention of minority journalism associations, Obama said, "there's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for.
"I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history acknowledged," Obama said. "I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but deeds."
--- Douglas Turner
Minor parties like the Independence Party rarely draw much attention, but the dealings of the leaders from Monroe and Erie counties have resulted in two big stories in The Buffalo News in recent days.
First came the July 19 story indicating that Democratic congressional hopeful Jack Davis paid $5,000 each to the wives of the Monroe and Erie county party chairmen. Davis paid $5,000 to the wife of Monroe County Independence Chairman Rafael Colon (using her maiden name of Blanca Semidey) and $5,000 to a new corporation based in Florida and headed by Judith Orsini, wife of Erie County Independence Chairman Tony Orsini.
Davis and Orsini said the payments were for legitimate "consulting services."
After the story ran, Monroe's Independence leaders tried for eight days to track down Colon. According to interim Chairman Walter Schiemann, when Colon finally did acknowledge their calls, the leaders demanded his resignation for taking a "bribe."
"It's definitely a bribe -- absolutely," he told The News in a story published Tuesday.
No legal authority has even hinted at any interest in pursuing Schiemann's suggestion, but the payments raise questions. Though the party has nominated Kenmore attorney Anthony Fumerelle as its candidate for the 26th Congressional District, Orsini has acknowledged the possibility of substituting a major party candidate after the Sept. 9 Democratic primary.
That means that Davis, or any other candidate, could ultimately be the Independence nominee.
Minor parties occupy a unique position in New York politics. How do you view the legal maneuverings that have left the ballot's third line in limbo?
-- Robert J. McCarthy
The House Republican whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, told reporters this week that ever since the GOP, led by President Bush, raised the issue of drilling for oil and gas on America's ocean shelf, "people are listening" to Republicans for the first time in years.
However, the Democratic congressional leaders are not among those who are listening. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has ruled that there won't even be a floor debate on the issue of offshore drilling before Congress begins its month-long August recess at the end of next week.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forbade offshore exploration amendments to legislation limiting the influence of commodity futures speculators on the prices of oil and gas. On Wednesday, Sen. Robert C. Byrd., D-W.Va., pulled an appropriations bill from consideration to prevent Republicans from amending it to permit offshore drilling.
With gasoline prices hovering over $4 a gallon, a majority of voters polled think that loosening restrictions on drilling might help relieve pump pain over the long run. Other polls indicate many voters think that oil companies, and not average Americans, would get the economic benefit from more exploration.
President Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling in many coastal areas. However, Congress has renewed the ban every year. The current prohibition expires Sept. 30.
The probable Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, sides with President Bush on allowing more coastal exploration, but McCain does not support tapping oil and gas reserves believed to be under the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Some believe this will help McCain in the presidential race.
McCain's Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, agrees with Pelosi, Reid and Byrd.
What do you think Congress should do?
--- Douglas Turner
WASHINGTON -- House Republican leaders begged President Bush to remain firm on his threat to veto the mortgage relief, or bailout bill, but he relented on the advice of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told reporters on Thursday "I kept trying to say all of last week to the president . . . and others, "Look, we could solve this problem before we leave here at the end of July . . . Let's mastermind the opportunity we have here.'
"We told the president's staff on Monday," Blunt said at a breakfast briefing, "if you keep the veto threat, we'll sustain the veto and we'll get a better bill before we leave here next week."
But then Bush announced he was withdrawing his veto threat. Blunt said, "Whenever (the president) sends a signal that we'll sign anything you pass, you're asking for really bad things to happen."
"In my view, they did happen," Blunt said. "The (mortgage) bailout provisions let too many bankers get rid of too many loans that they had written off to zero already."
Bush's action released a number of Republicans to side with Democrats and vote for the measure. Without a full complement of Republican opponents, the House on Wednesday voted 272-152 to pass sweeping legislation that will offer up to $300 billion in assistance to troubled homeowners and throw government support behind mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it has to survive a Republican filibuster threat.
"This legislation will be talked about for months, perhaps years," Blunt said. He warned it authorized the Treasury to grant up to $4 billion to local housing organizations, even ones that had been convicted of crimes in the recent past, to buy up foreclosed properties.
Blunt said the bill lacks stronger oversight on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, discourages banks from working with people who want to stay in their homes, and "comes as close to throwing money away as you could possibly get."
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he wasn't told of Bush decision to withdraw the veto threat until Tuesday night.
"I am very disappointed," Boehner told the web newspaper Politico. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., called the president's decision "unconscionable."
With less than six months left in President Bush's term, who's minding the store?
-- Douglas Turner
With the lead anchors of ABC, CBS and NBC following Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama across Asia, the Middle East and Europe, are Americans seeing a media bias in favor of the Illinois senator?
A new Rasmussen Reports survey showed Monday that 60 percent of those surveyed said the media treats Obama better than Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, with 14 percent saying McCain gets more favorable coverage.
On Sunday, the media critic of the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, said national media are in danger of undermining their credibility unless they post tough questions to Obama on the trip or try to even out their coverage. Kurtz, who has a media show on CNN, showed a string of Newsweek magazine covers of Obama as evidence of that publication's Democratic tilt.
Kurtz asked rhetorically whether reporters and news organizations were covering Obama "as if he were already president?" (Newsweek is owned by Kurtz's main employer, the Washington Post Company.)
Wolf Blitzer also raised the issue of media bias during his show on the left-leaning cable network, CNN.
Obama also got the break last week in print coverage, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Obama had a significant presence - 77 percent in the 342 print stories studied last week - compared to 48 percent for McCain.
As the debate swirled, the New York Times rejected an op-ed piece offered by McCain to expand on his views of the Iraq war. The Times did publish a piece on July 14 written by Obama on the same subject.
NBC News President Steve Capus told the Associated Press that he finds it funny this is an issue, considering how much people have accused the press corps — and still do — of being too cozy with McCain. The Arizona senator had been a frequent guest of "Meet the Press."
"We're just trying to do our jobs," Capus said. "There's no question that there's great news value in Sen. Obama's trip overseas. That's why we are doing this."
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh said, "my prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defense issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman. McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media's narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him."
--- Douglas Turner
WASHINGTON - With election approaching and wedge issues becoming more prominent, the Bush administration is proposing new regulations on which agencies must provide reproductive services on request.
Pro-choice agencies and officials such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., see the rules as limiting access to contraception and increasing the number of institutions that are allowed to deny women reproductive services, including abortion.
Clinton said "the regulations could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms."
Pro-life groups say the rules will protect patients and professionals from being forced to provide prescription drugs and abortion to which they may be conscientiously opposed.
The pro-choice Center for Reproductive Rights said the draft regulations "purport to educate recipients of (federal) funds of their obligations under the Church and Weldon amendments, which prohibit recipients of federal funds from discriminating against healthcare provides who object to the provision of abortion or sterilization services."
"In reality," the center said, "the regulations go much further, sweeping contraceptive services under an overly broad definition of abortion, and allowing virtually anyone connected with the provision of services to refuse to participate."
The center's president, Nancy Northrup, praised Clinton for working to prevent the Bush administration "from politicizing birth control."
The New York Times reported the Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and certain types of birth control. Hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign written certifications in order to obtain any funds from the federal government.
State and local governments would also have to sign the certifications or lose federal funds for hospital and related services.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the plan potentially "is dangerous assault on women's health."
While most voters' concerns center on the price of gasoline, the security of banks, and the Iraq war, abortion issues still exert a strong pull on traditionalists. A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that nearly two thirds of those surveyed support the 1973 Roe v Wade decision of the Supreme Court, people are still conflicted as to what limits should be placed on abortion rights, with only 38 percent saying it "should be legal in most cases."
The proposed rules were praised by Concerned Women for America.
"For over 35 years, federal laws have protected the conscientious rights of healthcare professionals, but they were not fully implemented for lack of thorough regulations to enforce them," said CWA President Wendy Wright. "As more controversial drugs and procedures get introduced, and additional pressure is put on healthcare providers to either compromise their moral commitments or lose their jobs, the need has become greater for regulations to catch up with the law."
As patients, we rely on healthcare professionals to provide ethical advice and treatments," she said. "Patients will lose trust in the healthcare field if professionals are gagged from giving ethical and well-informed advice or forced to commit procedures or provide drugs that take an innocent life. If healthcare professionals are denied the right to live out their moral beliefs, patients will suffer the consequences."
Who is right?
--Douglas Turner
WASHINGTON -- Jack Davis has some new political "consultants" -- and they just so happen to be the wives of the two men who will decide who gets the Independence Party's nomination for Congress in the 26th District.
Davis calls them "consultants," and both he and Erie County Independence Chairman Anthony L. Orsini, husband of one of the "consultants," denied any impropriety.
It's funny. We have plenty of these "consultants" here in Washington, and here, it's a code name for one of two things:
"Political hack."
And "recently laid off."
But maybe "consultant" means something different in Western New York; I don't know. So fill me in: What, in this particular case, does the term "consultant" really mean?
-- Jerry Zremski
The Democrats' takeover of the House in 2006 transformed Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-Manhattan, into one of the three most powerful members of the body. It made the 38-year incumbent the new chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Before that he gained prominence mainly as a gravelly-voiced Sunday talk show guest and as the powerless ranking Democrat on ways and means. Now all that's changed.
Under the Constitution, all tax measures -- adding or cutting -- must originate with the committee that Rangel dominates. The committee also holds sway over Social Security, Medicare, and some aspects of Medicaid. In addition, Rangel controls legislation on international trade such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Chinese imports.
On Tuesday, the Washington Post disclosed that Rangel "is soliciting donations from corporations with business interests before his panel, hoping to raise $30 million for a new academic center that will house his papers when he retires."
“The New York Democrat," the Post said, "has penned letters on congressional stationery and has sought meetings to ask for corporate and foundation contributions for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, a project that caused controversy last year when he won a $1.9 million congressional earmark to help start it.
Republican critics dubbed the project Rangel's ‘Monument to Me.’”
Kevin Smith, spokesman for the House Republican leadership, called Rangel's tactics "another example of the hypocrisy of House Democrats who famously promised to 'drain the swamp' in Washington."
The Post noted that the House Ethics Manual says that official House resources, specifically including stationery, "must be used for the performance of official business of the House, and hence those resources may not be used for campaign or political purposes." The manual later states, "Official stationery, like other official resources, may be used only for official purposes."
Does Rangel's desire to discuss the new center constitute "official business"?
The story about Rangel's use of House stationery to ask potential donors to discuss "his vision" for the center broke just as Rangel was trying to brush back issues dealing with his rental of four highly coveted rent-restricted apartments in Manhattan from one of the town's most powerful developers.
Rangel has said he did nothing wrong relative to getting the apartments, but has declined to comment about the use, or misuse of official House resources.
Calls for an official House Ethics Committee probe of Rangel have come not just from House Republicans, but from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.
"It's not a close call," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. "He's clearly violated the rule against using the letterhead."
One question is whether House Republicans will file a formal request with the House Ethics Committee. Since 1997, House rules have barred the committee from considering a complaint from an outside group such as CREW.
The House has created the skeleton of an outside body to consider non-congressional complaints, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has been cool to ethics reform hasn't appointed members to the independent body. Neither for that matter has House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio., in spite of what GOP spokesman Smith said about Democratic "hypocrisy."
Do you think there will be an ethics probe of Rangel before this November's congressional elections?
--- Douglas Turner
Monday was a typical Washington day, with the media providing us with a kerfuffle du jour to distract us from all of that repetitive stuff about gasoline prices, people losing their homes and soldiers dying in far-off wars.
And this time the kerfuffle was all about ... a cartoon!
In case you spent Monday in a submarine exploring the depths of Lake Erie and somehow missed it, The New Yorker this week ran a cartoon on its cover that featured Barack Obama in a robe and turban. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was shown fist-jabbing his rifle-toting wife in an Oval Office where a portrait of Osama bin Laden hung above the mantle and the U.S. flag burned bright in the fireplace.
Now this was supposed to be a parody of all the Internet-fueled hooey that's convinced some Americans that Obama is, well, just not one of us.
And it reminded me of the woman I met in North Carolina a couple months ago, who said to me: "I hate Barack Obama. I think he's a Muslim. And I can't stand that minister of his!"
Now what do you think she will make of that cartoon?
-- Jerry Zremski
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., is defending himself against Bush administration charges that letters he sent to bank regulators spurred a depositors' run on the IndyMac bank, its collapse and seizure by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The Pasadena, Calif., bank, which specialized in the riskiest types of mortgages, was seized by the FDIC on Friday. It is the largest regulated thrift institution ever taken over by the FDIC. Estimates of the cost of the federal takeover range from $4 billion to $8 billion.
On June 26, Schumer, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, wrote to four regulatory agencies saying, "I am writing to you out of concern for the safety and soundness risks posed by IndyMac. The regulatory community may not be prepared to take measures that would help prevent the collapse of IndyMac or minimize the damage should such a failure occur."
As it happened, depositors withdrew $1.3 billion from IndyMac in the 11 business days that followed Schumer's letter, according to the Associated Press.
On Friday, the director of one of the regulatory agencies blamed the bank's failure on the run that followed Schumer's letter. John M. Reich, head of the Office of Thrift Supervision, told the Washington Post that the run frustrated efforts to sell IndyMac by spooking off potential investors.
However, when Schumer wrote to the four agencies, IndyMac had already lost 97 percent of its market value in a year.
Reich told a conference call "when a member of the U.S. Senate makes such a public statement, it doesn't take much to frighten the depositors of an institution. It was an unprecedented act on the senator's part and the result speaks for itself."
At a press conference Sunday, Schumer said "the regulator here was asleep at the switch. The (Bush) administration is doing what they always do, blaming the fire on the person who called 911."
Schumer said his June 26 letter provided "no new revelations" about IndyMac, but merely pointed out problems that had been accumulating for a long time. Schumer is the third-ranking leader of the Democratic majority and is chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee.
The effect of public statements on bank solvency has been debated for decades. CNBC, the cable financial network, briefly carried a sensational headline on Friday about the federally chartered mortgage backer, Fanny Mae, which is now the subject of a proposed federal bailout. The headline said falsely that Fanny Mae was conducting a "going out of business sale."
Today, the New York Times predicted that up to 150 banks out of 7,500 will fail in the U.S. in the next year to year and a half.
What to you think about the effect of such publicity on the health of these institutions?
--- Douglas Turner
