ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Jeff Merkley”

LGBT

ENDA Once Again Introduced By Bipartisan Group Of Lawmakers

By Crosby Burns on Apr 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm

In the United States today, it’s perfectly legal under federal law and in a majority of states to fire someone for being LGBT. Today, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate once again introduced legislation that would change that.

If passed, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA) would prohibit most public and private employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Led by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), this commonsense bill levels the playing field for LGBT workers by finally affording them the same workplace rights and safeguards afforded to other protected classes on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability, among others.

If this bill sounds familiar, that’s because it’s been around for quite a while. ENDA was first introduced in 1994 and has been introduced in every single session of Congress with only one exception. What’s more, this commonsense bill has only been seriously considered before Congress twice. In 2007, the House voted on and actually passed ENDA (though the bill lacked protections on the basis of gender identity), but the bill went nowhere and died in the Senate. In 1996, the full Senate voted on ENDA (also without protections for transgender workers) the same day it approved the anti-gay and discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While most expected it to pass, the bill lost by a single vote that year.

The fact that this bill has languished in the halls of Congress for nearly two decades is absurd, especially considering that Americans have supported equal opportunities and fairness for LGBT workers since the early 1980s. Today, 73 percent of likely voters support ENDA, and that includes a majority of Republicans and self-identified conservatives. Even 50 percent of people who have generally unfavorable views about LGBT people support equal treatment for LGBT workers. On top of public support, businesses large and small — from Wall Street to Main Street — support this bill.

Even with all of this support, ENDA still has yet pass.

Perhaps what’s most remarkable about the bill is that nine out of ten voters already think its protections are law. Treating workers equally — regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity — is a no-brainer for the vast majority of the American public.

ENDA’s premise is simple: everyone who works hard and plays by the rules should be able to make a living to support themselves and their families. Sadly, mountains of research confirms that many LGBT people don’t have that opportunity due to high rates of employment discrimination, which leaves them without a job and without a steady income to make ends meet. In fact, it’s largely because of employment discrimination and the absence of ENDA that LGBT families are more likely to live in poverty and report lower annual incomes than non-LGBT families.

One of the reasons that ENDA is still not law of the land is that opponents of LGBT equality continue to use misleading and false rhetoric to distract and derail the bill from being enacted. For example, anti-gay conservatives continue to claim that ENDA poses a threat to religious liberty, despite the fact that the bill contains a robust exemption for religiously-affiliated organizations (notably, some groups think that provision goes too far in exempting religious organizations from claims). Others use scare tactics about transgender workers and ridiculous arguments about bathrooms, changing rooms, and invasion of privacy issues, even though few if any problems of that nature have arisen in states with employment protections on the basis of gender identity.

The good news is that there is now more momentum than ever to finally pass ENDA into law. Lawmakers are literally rushing to come out in favor of LGBT equality. Now that this bill has been re-introduced, it’s time for lawmakers to walk the walk and vote in favor of equality.

Crosby Burns is a policy analyst for LGBT Progress.

LGBT

37 Senators Call On President To Act On LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections

By Zack Ford on Feb 14, 2013 at 1:11 pm

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), lead signature on the letter.

A coalition of 37 U.S. Senators who support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) have signed a letter calling on President Obama to take action now to protect LGBT people from being fired for their identities. Though ENDA faces Republican obstruction in Congress, Obama could still sign an executive order requiring that federal contractors not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Hopes were high that he would address either ENDA or an executive order in his State of the Union, but he did not specifically mention either.

In the Senators’ letter, they describe the executive order as “a matter of basic fairness”:

Issuing an Executive Order that includes sexual orientation and gender identity is a critical step that you can take today toward ending discrimination in the workplace. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity would extend equal workplace rights to more than 16 million workers, and would help ensure that they are not forced into the ranks of the unemployed based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity. But doing so would also serve another important purpose, one that is always on our minds as appropriators of American’s taxpayer dollars, namely, making the most efficient use of federal government resources. [...]

Of course, making this important change is also a matter of basic fairness. Unfortunately, there are many examples of why issuing an Executive Order is so critically needed. Despite advances in many American workplaces, rates of discrimination against LGBT people remain high. Research shows that up to 43 percent of LGB people and 90 percent of transgender people report having experienced some form of workplace discrimination.

The Obama administration has claimed that it would prefer a legislation option, but has not explained why it refuses to act on the executive order.

Justice

Poll: Most Popular Filibuster Reform Is Limiting Obstruction Of Judicial Nominees

By Ian Millhiser on Dec 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm

A new Public Policy Polling poll finds overwhelming support for filibuster reform generally, and similarly strong support for specific reforms currently under discussion. The poll, which includes respondents from the ten states of Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont, finds that 61 percent of the public wants their senator to vote to change the Senate’s rules, while only 25 percent support the status quo. Similarly, the poll finds that 62 percent support “allowing one opportunity to filibuster a bill instead of the four different opportunities to filibuster that the current Senate rules allow,” and 70 percent support a proposal to “make Senators who want to filibuster a bill have to continue to debate the bill on the Senate floor.”

The most popular reform tested by the poll, however, is ensuring that “people who have been nominated to serve as judges have an up or down vote on their nominations in a more timely manner.” 75 percent of respondents supported this proposal. Only 17 percent oppose it. This very popular reform closely resembles a proposal by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last January to guarantee every nominee an up or down vote within 90 days.

The Senate, however, does not appear to have not caught up to the President and public opinion in supporting a guaranteed timely floor vote for nominees. In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress last week, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) expressed doubt that Obama’s proposal would receive the support of a majority of his colleagues. Merkley also proposed a more moderate reform, however, that would go a long way towards ending obstruction of federal judges.

Currently, the minority can force up to 30 hours of floor time to be wasted even after a supermajority of the Senate votes to break a filibuster on a nominee. Because Senate floor time is so precious, the mere threat of this wasted time is often enough to prevent the majority from calling a vote on nominees, even though the nominees enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support. Merkley proposed proposed reducing these 30 hours to just 2 hours, or even to no time at all — thus ensuring that the overwhelming majority of nominees, who face no meaningful opposition even from senators in the minority, will no longer be used as bargain chips in a one-sided game of obstructionism.

Health

Senate Democrats: Raising Medicare Eligibility Age Is ‘Absolutely Unacceptable’

By Jeff Spross on Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Sen. Jeff Merkley (R-OR)

Raising the age at which Americans qualify for Medicare from 65 to 67 has gained more and more prominence as one option to cut spending in a fiscal cliff deal. Although top Democratic leaders have ruled out the notion, the White House itself has not.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) informed the Washington Post’s Greg Sergeant that he and other liberal Senators roundly condemned the idea at a recent private caucus among Senate Democrats. “The overwhelming sense was that this would be absolutely unacceptable,” he told The Post, adding that he “can’t imagine” President Obama is seriously considering the policy.

According to Merkley, Congress should actually consider lowering the eligibility age for the program:

“I do a lot of town halls,” Merkley said. “I can’t tell you how many times someone will come up to me and say, ‘Here’s the thing. I’m 61, and I have these major health problems. I don’t have insurance. I’m praying I make it to 65.’ The idea that we’re going to take all these folks with diseases setting in as they get older, and move them two years later? Absolutely unacceptable.”

“We should be lowering the age, not raising it,” Merkley said. Speaking of the president, Merkley added: “I hope he hears long and loud from us who are connected to the real lives of working people.”

Just as Merkley points out, increasing Medicare’s eligibility age by two years would come with a human cost. In states that don’t participate in Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, over 160,000 seniors would be left out in the cold — too rich to qualify for their state’s Medicaid program, but too poor to purchase decent coverage on their own. And as the oldest Americans looking for coverage outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare, those seniors would face particularly high premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Altogether, about 435,000 seniors would be at risk of having no insurance coverage whatsoever in 2021 if the eligibility age went up.

Making seniors wait longer to qualify for Medicare would also force many to stay longer in their jobs in order to keep their employer-based health insurance. But lower-income seniors’ jobs are more likely to be unpleasant and physically damaging — and they’re also the same seniors least likely to have benefited from the gains in life expectancy that have accrued mainly to the more well-off.

The policy would also increase costs throughout the rest of the health care system. Since the seniors who are no longer eligible would be shifted into other coverage pools — where they would be older and sicker in comparison to other enrollees — the Center for American Progress estimated that Americans would actually wind up spending $2 in the health care system as a whole for every $1 that raising the eligibility age would save in federal spending.

Justice

EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Merkley Gives Progressives Reason To Be Optimistic About Filibuster Reform

By Ian Millhiser on Dec 7, 2012 at 9:37 am

When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that he was “wrong” to oppose filibuster reform in 2011, he named two senators as “prophetic” advocates of reform, Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). These two senators will now play a key role in shaping the filibuster reform package that Senate Democrats ultimately bring to the Senate floor next month. In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, Sen. Merkley laid out what he believes that package will include and what he hopes to add to it. His remarks should give progressives hope.

Merkley began the interview by endorsing two reforms that it was already clear would be included in the reform package this January: eliminating the minority’s ability to filibuster the same bill more than once and requiring a senator to speak on the floor in order to maintain a filibuster. Reid already publicly endorsed both of these proposals. Yet, as ThinkProgress has explained, they are not sufficient in and of themselves to prevent widespread obstructionism.

Sen. Merkley, however, listed several other reforms he would like to include in the final package that, together with the two Reid has already endorsed, add up to something quite meaningful. Under current Senate rules, the minority can force up to 30 hours of floor time to be wasted even after a supermajority of the Senate votes to break a filibuster on a nominee. And while 30 hours may not seem like a lot, when they are multiplied across the hundreds of nominees a president must confirm, these 30 hours enables the minority to literally force the Senate to waste years of precious work time doing nothing but confirming judges and executive branch officials. These 30 hours are likely the single greatest tool an obstructionist minority possess, and Senate Republicans wielded this tool to great effect in order to block President Obama’s nominees.

Merkley called for eliminating this opportunity for obstruction completely:

Two years ago, the package that Tom Udall and I put together included reducing those 30 hours to 2 hours, so people could make a final comment as their colleagues were about to vote. And something like that is appropriate. I think it could even be appropriate to go to zero hours, and here’s why: it takes two days for a cloture petition to “ripen.” What that means is that, by the time you file it, and its all public, you have to wait until the day after an intervening day. And so there’s plenty of time for people to make their final case once that petition is there. So if you reduce it to zero hours, you can have a series of cloture petitions and a series of votes that no one could basically — on a Thursday night or a Friday night you could go through a whole series of judges.

Watch it:

This is a serious proposal, and it would do more to restore the Senate’s ability to function than anything else that has been seriously discussed since the election. So long as John Boehner controls the House, there is little the Senate can do to pass legislation over Republican objections. Merkley’s proposal to eliminate these 30 hours of delay, however, would completely strip away one of the current minority’s favorite tactics — filibustering nominees they don’t even oppose.

Read more

Justice

Nine Democratic Senate Candidates Endorse Filibuster Reform

By Ian Millhiser on Nov 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Nine Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate — Tammy Baldwin (WI), Rich Carmona (AZ), Martin Heinrich (NM), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Mazie Hirono (HI), Tim Kaine (VA), Bob Kerrey (NE), Chris Murphy (CT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA) — all committed to “fix the broken Senate by reforming the filibuster” according to a fundraising pitch on their behalf by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), increasing the likelihood that the Senate will finally fix its deeply broken rules when it reconvenes with its new members this January.

Although it is unclear just what package of reforms will be on the table in January, Merkley is the leading proponent of an eight part rules reform plan that is likely to be among the leading contenders. Although many prongs of Merkley’s plan are rather modest, his most significant proposal requires a gradually escalating group of senators to be physically present on the Senate floor in order to maintain a filibuster:

The public believes that filibustering senators have to hold the floor. Indeed, the public perceives the filibuster as an act of principled public courage and sacrifice. Let’s make it so.

Require a specific number of Senators — I suggest five for the first 24 hours, 10 for the second 24 hours, and 20 thereafter — to be on the floor to sustain the filibuster. This would be required even during quorum calls. At any point, a member could call for a count of the senators on the floor who stand in opposition to the regular order, and if the count falls below the required level, the regular order prevails and a majority vote is held.

Because Merkley’s plan imposes a physical cost on senators who filibuster, it would go a long way towards eliminating the kind of widespread obstructionism that dominated the last four years. Currently, just a handful of senators can bring the Senate to a standstill by objecting to each bill or nomination that comes before the body. Then the burden falls on the majority to come up with 60 votes to break the filibuster — and even if they do, the obstructionists can still force up to 30 hours of needless delay afterwards.

The Merkley plan will not eliminate all of this needless delay. Nor will it prevent a truly determined minority from blocking a high priority item that they care a great deal about. But it will go a long way towards preventing just a small group of senators from blocking routine bills and confirmations.

When the new senators are sworn in next January, a brief window opens up when a bare majority of the Senate can reform the filibuster or eliminate it entirely.

Economy

Democratic Senators Will Call For Stronger Rule Against Risky Bank Trades After Investigation Of JP Morgan Chase

By Travis Waldron on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:45 am

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

The Senate panel responsible for probing the $9 billion “London Whale” trading loss that shook JP Morgan Chase earlier this year will release its findings before the end of the year and will call for a stronger Volcker Rule, sources told Bloomberg. The rule is a piece of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that bans taxpayer-backed banks from certain types of risky trades.

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin (D), who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said at the time of the loss that the draft version of the Volcker Rule had a loophole so large “a Mack truck could drive right through it.” Now, according to Bloomberg, he and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) will push regulators to close loopholes in the rule and strengthen it to prevent trades like the London Whale loss, which could have caused larger market problems at smaller or more vulnerable banks.

At the same time, some Republican senators are still pushing to further weaken the rule, which was watered down so much by bank lobbyists and Republicans that its namesake, former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, said he didn’t like it.

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) cast the deciding vote for the Dodd-Frank law, but not before he successfully weakened the Volcker Rule by inserting certain exemptions for big banks. Since then, Brown has continued to lobby regulators to take even more teeth out of the rule. Brown’s efforts amount to “significant loosening of the regulations and [are] absolutely serving the interests of people who do not want to have meaningful reform,” according to Simon Johnson, and MIT professor and reform advocate.

LGBT

The 11 Most Pro-Gay U.S. Senators

By Josh Israel and Adam Peck on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Patty Murray (D-WA)

Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Patty Murray (D-WA)

In recent days, ThinkProgress has identified the most pro- and anti-LGBT members of the U.S. House of Representatives. While in this Congress anti-gay forces have been relatively quiet in the Senate — only Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) has proposed an overtly anti-LGBT bill or resolution — Senators in support of equality have proposed sixteen bills pro-LGBT bills since the start of 2011. Eleven Senators have sponsored or co-sponsored at least ten of those measures.

Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI), John Kerry (D-MA), and Patty Murray (D-WA), tied for the honor of most pro-LGBT Senator: they put their names on 13 of the 16 bills each. Akaka, a fourth-term Senator who will retire at the end of 2012, authored the Health Equity and Accountability Act of 2012 (a bill to improve tracking of health data for LGBT people and other minority groups). Murray, a fourth-term Senator, spells out on her LGBT issue webpage that “Equal protection under the law is a fundamental right in our country. No one should suffer discrimination because of their race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” And Kerry, now in his fifth term in the Senate, is chief sponsor of the Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act of 2011 (which seeks to help at-risk LGBT youth) and the HOME Act of 2011 (which protects LGBT citizens from housing discrimination).

Eight other Senators — seven Democrats and one independent — signed on to at least 10 pro-LGBT proposals, putting them just behind Akaka, Kerry, and Murray. They are:


Read more

Yglesias

Super Committee Proposal Should Be Scored For Labor Market Impact

By Matthew Yglesias on Sep 14, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Jeff Merkley continues to be one of my very favorite senators:

“We need to have every proposal that the super-committee brings out to have it scored by its jobs impact,” Merkley told me in an interview this morning. He plans to urge Democratic and GOP leaders to agree to this standard, and hopes to build a campaign to make it happen.

There’s precedent for the CBO scoring proposals for jobs impact. You can find examples of that here, here, and here. As Merkley notes, Congress normally submits proposals for budgetary impact but Congress can request jobs impact evaluations.

This is an excellent idea. Reducing the long-term budget deficit is a good thing to do, but Congress needs to make sure they don’t stomp even harder on a delicate labor market in the course of trying to do it.

Politics

Merkley: Senate Obstructionism Is ‘Damaging the Other Two Branches of Government’

By Ian Millhiser on Sep 30, 2010 at 6:40 pm

Speaking at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund this week, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) warned that Senate obstructionism has become so severe that it is hollowing out the other branches of government:

It’s absolutely impossible to make the Senate any less deliberative than it is at this moment . … I want to add that this isn’t just about the Senate and legislation.  This is about the judiciary and the executive branches, because we are unable to confirm the nominations for the courts.  We’re unable to confirm the nominations for the President’s team, and that is outrageous that the Senate, in its role of consulting and confirming, is basically damaging the other two branches of government.

Watch it:

Merkley is right. Although Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) megolomaniacal decision to block all bills that he has not personally approved may be the most dramatic example of widespread Senate obstructionism, conservatives began sabotaging the Senate the minute that President Obama took office.  As Attorney General Eric Holder noted yesterday, judicial confirmations have slowed to such a glacial pace that fully half of all federal judgeships will be vacant by 2020 unless the pace improves.

Such obstructionism works because the Senate Rules allow the minority to delay all Senate business by up to 30 hours every time the Senate votes to confirm just one nominee.  A new president must fill approximately one thousand Senate confirmed jobs over the course of their first term.  So when you multiply the 30 hours of wasted time across all one thousand nominees, it adds up to more time than the Senate is in session for two entire presidential terms:

TyrannyofTime_webcharts-01

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up