ANOTHER DAY AT THE OFFICE
Lou Frey, Jr., Member of Congress (FL ’69-’79); Past President, Former Members of Congress;
Partner, Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, Florida
E-Mail:  lou.frey@lowndes-law.com

I’m sure there is much confusion about what is going on in Washington regarding the recent vote on the Health Care Bill.  As you know, the Senate agreed by a 60/39 margin to begin debating the bill.  Let me try to explain what normally happens on any controversial piece of legislation.
The first step that the leadership takes is to identify those members who are definitely for the bill or definitely against the bill.  These people generally are impossible to change. Very early in the process they issue a press release to their district and state so that their position is set in cement.  It insulates them against pressure from their leadership and the President.  It is only under extreme circumstances that they change their vote, and usually with disastrous results. 

A few years ago when Bill Clinton was President, a major tax bill came up for a vote.  A young Democratic Congresswoman from Pennsylvania had campaigned against the bill for some time and had issued press releases saying that under no circumstances would she vote for the bill.  When the bill came to the floor for final passage, the Democrats needed one more vote to pass the bill.  Under intense pressure from the President and her leadership, she changed her vote from “no” to “yes” and the bill passed by just one vote – her vote.  She lost her re-election bid because of that one vote.  Furthermore, the Clinton Administration did very little to help her out after her loss. 

The next group of people the leadership deals with are those people who are in difficult congressional districts or states.  In today’s House, you have 44 Democratic House members who represent districts that were carried by both Bush and McCain in ’04 and ’08 respectively.  You also have 53 Democratic members who belong to a group called the Blue Dog Democrats.  Their goal is fiscal responsibility.  There is some overlap between the Democratic members in difficult districts and the Blue Dogs.  What happens in the House is that the leadership will meet with the member and will try and get a commitment from that member to vote for the bill if needed.  The leadership usually says, “Don’t vote until the last minute.  We think we have enough votes to pass the bill and, if we do, go ahead and vote against the bill.  However, if we need your vote to pass the bill, we expect you to vote with us.”  That is why many times the recorded vote on the floor on final passage of a controversial bill takes much more time than is scheduled as various deals are being cut to get the necessary votes.  About half of the Blue Dogs voted against the Health Care Bill.
The Senate leadership has similar problems.  There are moderate Democratic Senators, such as Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), whose voters are against the Health Care Bill.  Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) needed 60 votes to let the debate on the Health Care Bill go forward.  The first thing that the Democratic leadership quite cleverly did was state that it was only a procedural vote and not a substantive vote.  This allowed numerous Democrats such as Ben Nelson to say that he was reserving the right on how to vote until final passage of the bill.  He said his vote should not be taken as showing that he favored the bill, only that he favored debating the bill.  In fact, this was not a procedural vote, but a substantive vote.  A no vote would not have killed the bill, but would have allowed some meaningful compromises to be made before the bill was brought back up. 

The final group is those members who usually are on the fence and like to stay on the fence.  They believe that this is the best bargaining position and, more times than not, find themselves offered something by the White House or their leadership for their vote. For instance, it was reported that Sen. Mary Landrieu received an extra $100,000,000.00 to benefit her state for voting for the bill.  Sen. Reid is not the first leader who has used this approach. 

A Symbol for Tomorrow’s Lawyers

By Leticia M. Diaz, PhD, JD

Dean and Professor of Law, Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law

     As a lawyer, a woman, and an American of Hispanic decent, I see the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court as a milestone in our society’s quest to achieve true diversity.  When I say diversity, I do not mean choosing one race, or one gender, over another, but ensuring that those at the highest level of decision-making bring to the table as many varied viewpoints, strengths, and perspectives as possible.  As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated, “A more diverse Supreme Court is a better Supreme Court.”   

     In the last decade, about half of entering law school students have been women. They are as bright, capable, and ambitious as their male counterparts. Likewise, the number of minorities entering law school has risen sharply in recent years, and continues to increase.  There is no question that these young and future lawyers need role models to look to for guidance and inspiration. It is difficult to chart a path for personal success if you have never seen anyone walk down the path before you.

     When I was in law school, while there were plenty of women enrolled, female or Hispanic role models for leadership positions like judges and law firm partners were few and far between. Before that, as a doctoral candidate in a scientific field, female and minority mentors were even harder to come by.  Like many in my generation, I believed that hard work, perseverance, and plain old refusal to quit would allow me to succeed. Ultimately, I was right.

     While I would not trade my experiences for the world, and though I still laud the benefits of tenacity and drive, I am glad that tomorrow’s leaders will have the added security of knowing that someone has actually accomplished what they seek to.  Ms. Sotomayor’s humble beginnings, including growing up in a public housing project, illuminate a woman who never let her gender, race, or socio-economic status dissuade her from achieving her goals.  Her membership on the highest court is a testament to the success she has achieved and an opportunity to lead a legacy of women and minorities in responsible roles in our society.  It also provides credibility for wide-ranging points of view, so that when new voices do come to the table, others listen.

     Whether you agree with her politics or not, Justice Sotomayor is a beacon. A lifetime appointment to the highest court is a profound event, the significance of which cannot be overstated. It is the ultimate position of responsibility in a field that is founded on rules, professionalism, and reason. I am proud to live in a country where people like Justice Sotomayor are recognized, and I hope that those who come after us will walk through the doors that have opened to them as a result of her appointment.