 FAN 1-15-2007 |
Prospects for family-friendly legislation to pass through the legislature with Lieut. Gov. Ramsey and Speaker Naifeh...What to expect here... In this issue of FAN: "In six days the Tennessee General Assembly will convene and the tone will be set for the next two years because on January 9th, the House and Senate will elect their respective Speakers and on this election could well hinge the success of a pro-family agenda over the next two years." FAN, 1-4-07 So, how did the pro-family agenda fare this past week as the elections for Speaker are over? Will a Ramsey-led Senate be more "family-friendly?" Unless you were in a coma (which, if you were, we're sorry, but glad you've recovered), you heard that Senator John Wilder's turn as Speaker and Lieutenant Governor came to an end after 30+ years and a Republican now holds that position for the first time in 138 years. But will the change in the Speaker positively affect the advancement of a pro-family agenda in the Senate? The Senate has a history of being the more socially conservative of the two chambers, so it is a legitimate question. But I do think it could make a difference in some not-all-too-obvious-but-important ways. Speaker Ramsey has made it clear that there will be some Democratic chairs, and he has made it clear that there will be a Republican majority on each committee. This, in itself, is simply a return to where things were two years ago when Democrats were in the majority (subtle but important shifts took place two years ago when the Republicans had the majority, but allowed Senator Wilder to remain the speaker). Most pro-family bills originate in Judiciary with Education and General Welfare splitting "second place" in importance. But, Judiciary and Education have been chaired by Republicans for years and, during the last two years, Republicans had a majority of the members on all three committees. General Welfare was majority Republican, but it was chaired by a Democrat. There may be no change here party-wise, though. It is widely thought that it will be chaired by Sen. Rosalind Kurita (D-Clarksville) whose vote turned the tide in Speaker Ramsey's election as Speaker. But, what will be different is that Republicans will now chair the Finance and Commerce committees. Not many "family" related pieces of legislation wind up before the Commerce Committee, but there will be some important family-related bills that wind up in the Finance Committee because they may cost some money. Having a Republican majority on that committee could be helpful if those Republicans are friendly toward our agenda. Thankfully, I can say that all of them are, some more passionately than others perhaps, and some new ones a bit of an "unknown quantity," but at least they all are "friendly." Perhaps the most important but not-often-apparent-to-the-public affect is that House bills must pass the Senate to become law. This is not just 8th grade civics, but politically important too. For example, bills important to House Democrats can be "slow walked" in the Republican controlled Senate until the Democratic leadership allows a pro-family bill, important to Speaker Ramsey and the Senate, to get a fair hearing or get to the floor of the House. As far as Family Action of Tennessee is concerned, good legislation needs to be passed, regardless of party sponsorship, but sometimes one chamber or the other needs some "incentive" to give another bill a fair shot at being heard and brought to a vote, especially where, as noted below, House Leadership has allowed legislation supported by a majority of the House to languish in a subcommittee. What does the election of Rep. Naifeh as Speaker mean to the pro-family cause? But the reverse of the foregoing is also true - changes in the Senate, while important, are not decisive because every bill must also pass the House. And in the House, the challenges are more significant because of two things - (i) the lack of clear cut and restrictive rules in the House, giving House chairmen more discretion and therefore more power than exists in the Senate, and (ii) the election of Speaker Naifeh. Appreciating the very real impact of the rules is a bit tedious for many, so let’s go to the question, "What does the election of Speaker Naifeh mean to the pro-family cause?" Before I answer this question, it must be made clear that our intent as an organization is to always speak the Truth as we understand it, but to do so as graciously as possible as would be fitting an organization with our foundational principles. If we're all honest, both parties can be right and both can be wrong, regardless of your philosophy or theology. Those who know me know that I am just as willing to call it as I see it for Republicans as I am for Democrats. For example, last week, I noted that there were questions as to the "coziness" of the relationship between Republican Leader, Jason Mumpower, and Speaker Naifeh, not something that Rep. Mumpower was probably altogether happy about (Last week Rep. Mumpower questioned where he was quoted as "publicly" stating he would "work with Naifeh" and upon further review, he was correct, it was Speaker Naifeh who had "publicly" said he could "work with" Rep. Mumpower, not vice versa. We apologize for the "reverse" attribution, but are pleased that our recognition of the issue remains warranted). That all being said, here is our understanding of where the pro-family agenda is. Speaker Naifeh has not been friendly to the pro-life cause on most occasions and his appointments to the various committees have largely (though not completely) frustrated our cause. If you don’t need the "proof," then skip to the next link. For example, on pro-life issues, Tennessee Right to Life can give you a long history on Speaker Naifeh's disdain for their agenda. We were told two years ago by a former House member who supported Speaker Naifeh and was feeling some election "heat" from Right to Life for that support, that the Speaker had promised to assign a certain pro-life measure to a subcommittee where this person might have a better opportunity to move the bill out of subcommittee. Whether the promise was actually made or fabricated by the member to avoid heat, when the election was over and the bill was assigned, it wound up back in front of the same subcommittee as usual which has ALWAYS been composed of a solid majority of Representatives who strongly oppose the pro-life agenda. The legislation has not even made it out of the subcommittee since originally filed in 2002 even though a majority of the House members have signed on as co-sponsors. As I said, committee assignments are crucial and on this matter, Speaker Naifeh is in complete control. Even though 81% of our citizens voted for the Marriage Amendment, those in the know can tell you how hard it was for the House sponsor of that amendment to get the amendment to the floor for a vote. The foot-dragging and extended negotiations to get the bill to the floor caused the amendment to be voted on so late in the legislative cycle that the ACLU was handed, on a silver platter, the legal argument it made to our state Supreme Court to keep the amendment off the ballot. In case you think the "delay" was just the "way the process works," think again. I’ve seen bills go from Subcommittee to the floor in 24 hours when it is "favored" by the House leadership. I could go on, but you get the drift. The continued election of Speaker Naifeh makes passage of many (though not all) pro-family bills a tough row to hoe. We will hope for the best, but the committee assignments just released do not look very positive. The re-appointment of Rep. John Deberry (D-Memphis) as chair of Children and Family Affairs could be positive news if he is allowed to vote his convictions. Rep. Deberry could always use an email or call of encouragement. I know from experience that it means a lot. You may contact him at rep.john.deberry@legislature.state.tn.us or 800-449-8366, ext. 12239. If a majority of legislators and citizens support such pro-family legislation, why is their Speaker not more reflective of the majority view? This is a good question, and I alluded to some of the reasons last week in my analysis of the then upcoming Speaker election. If you didn’t get that FAN edition, go to "archives" on our web site: www.factn.org. One thing that must be kept in mind is that individual legislators can only vote for the nominees before them. So, if the majority of Democrats vote to nominate a person, then the minority of Democrats who would favor a different candidate must either vote for the Republican nominee [and there are internal political consequences for doing that - ask Senator Kurita (D-Clarksville)and Sen. Mike Williams (R-Maynardsville)], vote for the nominee, or abstain. In the present situation, there are not enough Democrats who support our type of agenda to nominate a different Speaker. And, to be truthful, there are some who are friendly to our agenda who get to hold or have a chance to hold some "positions" under Speaker Naifeh's leadership that perhaps they consider more important than supporting a different person for Speaker. Anyway, those are their choices. Since every Democrat voted for Rep. Naifeh for Speaker, if you think your Democratic legislators is supposed to be "pro-family," and the "practical considerations" are not sufficient reason for you, then you will need to ask him or her why he or she did not vote for the Republican or at the least abstain. Of course, the Republicans have the same choices, but they do not have to fear retribution from within their own party. Republican leadership could hardly get mad at a Republican for voting for the Republican nominee for Speaker could they? So, did the Republicans stand, in mass, for their nominee over Speaker Naifeh? No they did not. Seven of them did not and six of them did not in the last election either. In the interest of an informed citizenry which makes for a stronger government, I will tell you their names in a moment and you may ask of them the reasons for their decisions. But, let me say this. I know six of those individuals (one of them is newly elected). Each of the six has voted for pro-life legislation, some more enthusiastically than others. Each voted to put the Marriage Amendment on the ballot. In time, I will become more familiar with how they vote on bills, but for now my personal experience is a bit limited because I have been in the Senate and have not followed their votes on other, less visible bills that are important to the family. But, in sum, there may be pragmatic reasons behind their votes for Speaker Naifeh or other reasons that do not come to my mind, but philosophically and politically, the votes they have cast on these issues and their votes for the Speaker are not, in my opinion, philosophically or politically consistent. It is ironic that practically all of those Republicans who supported Speaker Naifeh came from heavily Republican East Tennessee. Maybe their votes represent their district or maybe their district doesn't know. Time will tell. The House Republicans who vote for Speaker Naifeh are: Mike Harrison, Sneedville If you want to know why your legislator voted the way he or she did, you can ask for yourself; here is the link to the web page for all House members: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/House/Members/HMembers.htm What will happen next "on the Hill?" Nothing - at least nothing that the public will see or hear much about. The House and Senate will not come back until later this month. But work will be going on. Speaker Ramsey will make his decision about Committee chairmanships and appointments and announce them, most likely, when the Senate reconvenes. Senate Republicans will have to decide whether to stay in their offices on the third floor of the War Memorial Building, away from the main flow of constituent traffic, or move the Senate Democrats out of their offices in the Legislative Plaza into the War Memorial Building. Certainly if Republicans want to make a statement and let everyone know "they’ve arrived," there will be an awful lot of moving going on over the next two weeks! Legislators will be putting together their bills for filing when they reconvene and lobbyist will be meeting with or calling legislators to seek sponsors for their bills.
|
