Photo: Chris Steller, MnIndy

U.S. Sen. Al Franken said today that the absence of the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy was already “a major loss” to the Senate debate on health care reform, and now the Massachusetts Democrat’s death “just makes me more determined to get it done.” 

Roll Call:

“He was a man who fought for kids and for the disabled and for the poor and the sick and the disadvantaged,” Franken said. Health care reform “was the cause of his lifetime.”

Kennedy’s passing, Franken said, “just makes me more determined to get it done.”

Associated Press (via Star Tribune):

“His inspiration will be there, maybe in a bigger way,” [Franken] said. “Who knows, maybe it’ll be called the Kennedy bill.”

Photos: WDCPIX

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar recalls a cryptic message from Sen. Ted Kennedy that mystified the staffer who took it: “The lantern is lit.”

Klobuchar tells the Minnesota Independent she recognized the message as Kennedy’s way of beckoning her to his tiny, memorabilia-bedecked U.S. Capitol office, where the liberal lion held a small salon of senators rapt with “wild stories” from Boston and the campaign trail.

Kennedy’s jokingly obtuse message was an example of the “delightfulness and wit” he had in surplus and which Klobuchar finds sorely lacking among politicians generally.

Klobuchar, who joined the Senate in early 2007, says Kennedy “was really welcoming to new senators” — kindly sparing them a pedantic “this is how it works” lecture about the institution.

And at some point he began inviting a small group of senators — Klobuchar, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Charles Schumer of New York and one or two others — to an office he kept in the Capitol, tucked behind a press room.

“I don’t even know why we were a group,” Klobuchar says. “We were not debating the issues of the day.”

But Klobuchar recalls with fondness Kennedy’s Irish yarns and stories of the Senate. To her they formed a kind of “gift of history,” bestowed over a series of “five, six, maybe 10″ meetings.

A rising talent on the Washington, D.C. emcee circuit herself, Klobuchar says she admired Kennedy’s ability to belt out a song for the 100 people at a birthday party she attended.

Most recently, Klobuchar said she spoke with the ailing Kennedy when he returned to the Senate for a vote last spring, visiting with him where he always sat: at the back of the chamber, where he could keep an eye on the room. They talked about how he was doing, then moved to current events.

“He loved to hear about Franken-Coleman,” she says. “Just like everybody else.”

Photos: Wikipedia

President Obama called Congress’ “liberal lion,” Edward Kennedy, the “greatest United States senator of our time” — and his burial at Arlington National Cemetery will match that praise. But conservative bloggers are already complaining about his funeral, forecasting it’ll be a “Wellstone memorial on steroids.”

A post at the blog JammieWearingFool, amplified by Instapundit, appears to coin the phrase, in this context at least: “While we have no doubt the Democrats will do all they can to exploit his death and will probably have a Wellstone memorial on steroids, we’ll stay above that.”

But the phrase isn’t new: Rush Limbaugh used it to criticize Dems in a January interview with Fox’s Sean Hannity.

Paul Wellstone’s name also appears in a piece about Kennedy’s passing by The Economist, which includes the late Minnesota senator among statesmen like Adlai Stevenson, Edmund Muskie and George McGovern — “men who refused to compromise or triangulate in the Clinton style, and who made no apology for their beliefs.” The piece calls Kennedy the “last” of that clan, asking who’ll carry the torch now. (Two answers: Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.)

Here is Klobuchar’s full statement:

Ted Kennedy’s wit and stories, his passion for a cause and his country, and his love for the Senate just made you want to go to work every day.

I had the privilege to serve with Ted Kennedy in the Senate for just two years. He was a mentor to so many of us just starting out, not in the traditional “this is how you get it done” way, but instead as an inspiration. He never gave up and had a fiery zest for the legislative battles that was always tempered by a bipartisan pragmatism. He was incredibly strong and effective and had the deep respect of everyone that worked with him.

My thoughts and prayers are with Vicki, his children, and the entire Kennedy family.

Franken at far right. Photo: SNL Archive

In a story on the Senate Judiciary Committee taking up Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court next week, the New York Times makes mention of something noted here last week: committee member Al Franken’s 1991 TV portrayal of a U.S. senator on the same committee, questioning a Supreme Court nominee.

Franken has said he’ll ask Sotomayor about campaign finance reform, but on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” he was only looking for a date.

It was the opening bit on the SNL show on Oct. 12, 1991, satirizing Senate hearings about the nomination of Clarence Thomas.

UPDATE: NBC has now released the video clip of the sketch. Watch it here. 

Franken played the late Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois in trademark bow-tie. Among the other actors were the late Phil Hartman as Sen. Edward Kennedy, the late Chris Farley as Sen. Howard Heflin, and Chris Rock as Long Dong Silver. Kevin Nealon opened the skit in the role of Sen. Joe Biden (now vice president, then committee chairman).

Here’s the transcript of the sketch. Franken’s lines are near the end.

BIDEN: [ banging gavel ] Gentlemen! Gentlemen, please! Please! Professor Hill, I want to thank you for your … patience here today. You’ve shown remarkable courage throughout your testimony. It couldn’t have been easy for you — or any of us — to sit here for the last seven hours and talk about penis size, or large-breasted women having sex with animals, or pubic hairs on soft drink cans, or oral sex, or the black man’s sexual prowess, or large-breasted women having sex with animals. But we appreciate your candor. [ rest of committee shake their heads and smile ] And we, uh … hope we can reschedule you for another session tomorrow.

ANITA HILL: Thank you, Senator. [ stands up to leave, bumps into next witness, Judge Clarence Thomas, and quickly walks away from him ]

BIDEN: The committee, at this time, would like to call Judge Clarence Thomas. Judge Thomas? [ Judge Clarence Thomas sits ] Judge Thomas, we’re sorry to have to bring you back, but, as you know, some pretty serious allegations have been made by our previous witness.

THOMAS: First of all, I want to say that these proceedings are a travesty!

BIDEN: Mmm-hmm. Well, I understand that. But you did ask Ms. Hill out on a date?

THOMAS: Uh … yes, I did.

[ the committee whisper amongst themselves at the revealing testimony ]

BIDEN: And she refused?

THOMAS: That’s correct.

BIDEN: How did you go about asking her out for this date?

THOMAS: I’m not sure what you mean, Senator.

BIDEN: Well.. did you just go right up and ask her? Or did you have one of her friends tell her that you thought she was cute?

THOMAS: I just walked right up and asked her.

[ the committee whisper amongst themselves ]

KENNEDY: Were you, uh.. were you drunk at the time?

THOMAS: No, I was not.

BIDEN: But she wouldn’t go out with you?

THOMAS: No.

BIDEN: Was she aware that, as her boss, you could have her fired?

THOMAS: She must have been.

[ the committee members gasp at the shocking statement ]

BIDEN: And she still didn’t go out with you? [ Thomas nods no ] Now, Judge Thomas, there have been charges by Professor Hill that you talked casually with her about graphic scenes in porno movies. Is that true?

THOMAS: Yes, it is.

BIDEN: And.. did that work? Did it break the ice?

THOMAS: No, Senator, it actually offended her.

[ the committee is surprised the tactic didn't work ]

HEFLIN: Uh.. what porno movie did you talk about?

THOMAS: Well.. I mainly spoke about a favorite of mine, called “The Hind-Lick Manuever”.

HEFLIN: That’s a good movie, Judge! But do you think hard-core porno is the way to go? Because I feel women prefer softer porn.

BIDEN: Senator Thurmond?

SEN. STROM THURMOND: I agree with Senator Heflin. Yeah, that’s right! The women like something with more stories and costumes, that’ll transport ‘em to another place and time. That’s right! Women don’t like close-ups of oversized genitalia! That’s just never gonna turn ‘em on!

[ committee agrees ]

KENNEDY: A, uh … another good thing is to get them out on your boat for some reason, because, uh … because then it’s really hard for them to get away.

BIDEN: Do you have a question, Senator Kennedy?

KENNEDY: Uh, yes, I do. Have you ever tried coming out of the bathroom nude, and acting like you didn’t know someone was there?

THOMAS: Uh.. no.

KENNEDY: Well, that’s too bad. Because that works, too.

SIMON: Um … Judge? Judge Thomas? Judge Thomas, are you aware of that, uh.. division of our.. government.. known as the, uh … Criminal Justice, uh … Department?

THOMAS: Of course I am, Senator!

SIMON: Well, you know when you walk in the main entrance of the Criminal Justice Building.. there’s this receptionist with short brown hair?

THOMAS: The, uh … one at the third desk on the left?

SIMON: No, no. The one at the big, circular desk, uh … right there in the center there.

THOMAS: Oh, yes — Sandy.

SIMON: Yes. Sandy. Um … do you think that she’d go out with me?

THOMAS: Well, Senator Simon, not knowing your technique, I feel that it would be unfair for me to prejudge your chances with her.

SIMON: Uh-huh. Uh … you think it’s the bow tie, then?

BIDEN: Senator Simon. Please.

SIMON: Women just don’t seem to like the bow tie, do they?

BIDEN: Senator Simon. Please!

SIMON: Uh, sorry. Sorry.

BIDEN: Judge Thomas, I’d like to thank you for your testimony. You’ve been very forthcoming, and, may I say, it’s been an education.

THOMAS: Thank you, Senator. [ stands up and exits ]

BIDEN: The committee calls its next witness. [ black man walks up ] Sir, would you please state your name?

SILVER: Long Dong Silver.

[ committee members smile and shake their heads ]

BIDEN: Mr. Silver, we apologize for calling you back one more time.. but many of us on the committee are admirers of your work, and.. well, frankly, we could just listen to you all day. Now, we understand you have a statement?

SILVER: Uh, yes. I do. “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”

(WDCpix.com)

Norm Coleman isn’t the only obstacle to Democrats wielding 60 votes in the U.S. Senate. Edward Kennedy’s battle with brain cancer and Robert Byrd’s staph infection have effectively whittled an otherwise filibuster-proof majority down to 57 — for now.

Byrd, the 91-year-old senator from West Virginia, will be missing from the Senate for at least another week after going to the hospital three weeks ago, Politico reports, and Kennedy’s return isn’t set.

The Massachusetts Democrat is 77 and has served since 1962, a span three years shorter than Byrd’s all-time record for length of service by a U.S. senator.

Their absences, along with that of Coleman challenger Al Franken, have hamstrung Democrats on legislation from the Employee Free Choice Act to healthcare reform, as well as confirmation of a key Justice Department nominee.

Coleman has kept his own hopes of returning to the Senate alive by appealing two decisions against him, first from the State Canvassing Board in January and then by a special election-contest judicial panel in April. The Minnesota Supreme Court could issue a ruling on that second appeal as early as today.

The C-SPAN2 video clip is here (Franken line comes at the 7:35 mark).

David Hayes will be confirmed. If I have to wait until Al Franken comes, he’s going to be confirmed. We are going to confirm David Hayes. Everyone should understand that. If we happen to lose this today, I will just move to reconsider until we have the votes.

Having the votes may not actually require Franken. Yesterday’s vote was 57-39, with Reid strategically voting against Hayes so he could more easily bring his nomination back on a future day.

Three Democrats were out sick, and two Republicans voted for the nomination. With all Democrats on hand the filibuster could fall — if Reid can keep at least one GOP defector.

But that may not be easy, since one of the Democrats is Edward Kennedy, whose battle with brain cancer keeps him away from the Capitol for most votes. Errant Republicans will feel strong pressure to close ranks.

And that’s where the wait for Franken could come in.

Should his 312-vote lead survive review by the Minnesota Supreme Court after oral arguments set for June 1, Franken could be seated in the Senate quickly — as long as Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty issues him an election certificate.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) (WDCpix)

As Washington policymakers screamed bloody murder last month over bonus payments for a few hundred AIG employees, another much larger scandal flew virtually unnoticed on Capitol Hill: The divide between the wealth of blacks and whites — already gaping — grew again. Now, as Congress prepares to consider a series of consumer-friendly finance reforms, some minority advocates, researchers and lawmakers are pointing to that startling trend as another reason the reforms are urgently needed.

“We need to work together to begin to attack the institutional and structural reasons why communities of color continue to lag so far behind white families,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.

The concerns were justified last month. According to the Federal Reserve, the net worth of the typical African American family in 2007 was just 10 percent of the net worth of the typical white family — down from 12 percent in 2004. Put another way: For every $1 held by whites five years ago, blacks had 12 cents. Three years later, they had a dime.

“This is not just a gap. It’s a deepening canyon,” Meizhu Lui, director of the Closing the Racial Wealth Gap Initiative at the Oakland-based Insight Center for Community Economic Development, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed last month. “The overhyped political term ‘post-racial society’ becomes patently absurd when looking at these economic numbers.”

The staggering statistic has taken some powerful lawmakers by surprise. Participants in a wealth gap summit on Capitol Hill last month said that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who attended the event, was shocked to learn the extent of the disparity.

But incredulity is one thing; closing the gap is another. And congressional lawmakers with that goal in mind face a series of barriers to getting the job done. Not only is there little recognition that such a divide exists, but the causes, according to reform advocates, are so rooted in history and engrained in policy that they’re tough to iron out. Furthermore, the solutions reside largely in tax code reforms — among the thorniest issues to tackle on Capitol Hill. Advocates for closing the wealth gap say that congressional lawmakers are well behind the curve.

“In terms of them really grappling with it,” Lui said Friday, “I don’t think they’ve done that yet. There’s plenty of room for them to address this further.”

It won’t be easy. Advocates are pushing to reverse the Bush-era tax cuts, like those slashing the capital gains and estate taxes, which provide handsome benefits to those with accumulated wealth, but do almost nothing to help Americans of color, whose assets are a fraction of those held by white’s.

“People aren’t thinking in terms of wealth, it’s always about income,” Lui said of the public policy focus. “But income alone won’t do it.”

Thomas Shapiro, professor of law and social policy at Brandeis University, said additional tax reforms could include a shift in the mortgage interest deduction to benefit lower-valued homes and the creation of another deduction for renters — controversial ideas that “no one’s really talking about,” he said.

“When the issue is something like the racial wealth gap,” he said, “it’s very difficult to think of policy levers [as solutions].”

That the wealth disparity is so wide is largely attributable to prejudiced policies both public and private. Advocates and academics point out that some of the largest federal benefit programs of the last century propped up whites but largely excluded minorities. The G.I. Bill, for example, provided $120 billion in low-interest mortgage loans to servicemen after World War II, yet less than 2 percent went to minorities before 1962, Liu found. And the Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, created to modify mortgages to prevent foreclosures, benefited no minorities whatsoever, she said.

More recently, Harvard University discovered that, among blacks and whites of similar incomes, lenders targeted blacks more often for sub-prime loans, even when those minority borrowers were eligible for less risky arrangements.

To combat that trend, advocates and some Democrats are pushing for the creation of a Financial Products Safety Commission, a concept championed by Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the congressional panel created to oversee the Wall Street bailout. A Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) would do just that. The commission would regulate financial products, like mortgage loans and credit cards, much the same way the Consumer Products Safety Commission protects buyers from faulty coffee makers and lawn chairs. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) have also sponsored the bill.

The release of the Fed’s latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial assessment of American financial trends, reveals that such policies have taken their toll. The report found that, as a group, people of color held roughly 16 cents for every $1 held by whites in 2007. For Hispanics, the figure was 12 cents. For blacks, a dime. And those figures were crunched before the collapse of the economy. Advocates fear that the gap probably widened since then because, while fewer minorities than whites own their homes, minority homeowners tend to have a higher percentage of their wealth wrapped up in their homes.

Similarly, blacks and Hispanics have fewer credit cards, but tend to drive up higher debts per card. As a result, said Jose Garcia, associate director for research and policy at Demos, a liberal policy group, “more of [minorities'] income goes to pay debt, and less goes to buy assets.”

Minority advocates are also wary of payday lenders, who tend to charge exorbitant rates and target minority communities where traditional banks are often scarce. “Billions of dollars are being taken out of low- and moderate-income communities as a result of these alternative financing schemes,” Shapiro said.

Not that Congress isn’t doing anything at all. Legislation to help homeowners by empowering bankruptcy judges to alter mortgage terms passed the House last month, though it’s since stalled in the Senate. Democratic leaders are also preparing to take up bills tackling predatory lending and  credit card abuses. Another proposal to rein in payday lenders is also on the Democrats’ radar screen.

Speaking at the wealth gap summit last month, Lee said that reforming these industries to protect minority communities is long overdue. “Too many communities do not have access to traditional banks and rely too heavily on payday lenders and check cashing stores that charge uncontrolled fees and out of sight interest rates,” Lee said. “We must work together to use this financial storm to demand the institutional reforms that will begin to lift all American families out of this crisis.”

Reform advocates say they’re heartened by such statements coming from Capitol Hill, but many remain wary that few lawmakers are sticking their necks out to close the wealth gap.

“They were very friendly and very encouraging,” Shapiro said of the congressional participants at the summit, “but nobody was stepping up and saying, ‘I want to be the champion of this.’”

Mike Lillis is Congress reporter for the Washington Independent.

Rep. Jim Ramstad Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke

GOP Congressman Jim Ramstad has asked President-elect Barack Obama’s advisors to consider naming him to lead the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) — and he’s enlisted top Democrats to help with his bid.

Ramstad, a Republican who is retiring this year after nine terms in Congress, approached Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) before Thanksgiving to discuss an appointment in the Obama administration. He would need support from Kennedy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, if Obama were to choose Ramstad to lead the $3.3 billion agency.

“Sen. Kennedy thinks very highly of Congressman Ramstad and feels that he is uniquely qualified to serve the country in this position,” a Kennedy spokesman said.

But Ramstad has also gotten support from allies in the House: Kennedy’s son, Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy, and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) have encouraged Obama’s senior advisers to make the appointment.

A Rhode Island Democrat, Kennedy has had two conversations about Ramstad with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Obama’s incoming chief of staff, and John Podesta, who is leading the transition team, a Congressional Democratic official familiar with the conversation said.

At an event last month at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., Kennedy introduced Ramstad to former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who Obama likely will appoint to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

Kennedy jokingly introduced Ramstad to Daschle as the “next SAMHSA administrator,” a Congressional Democratic official said.

Although Ramstad’s name has been floated as the next “drug czar,” or head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Ramstad’s congressional allies believe that SAMHSA is a better fit and a more realistic possibility for the nine-term congressman.

The Kennedys and Ramstad have developed a close bond during the past few years borne from their experiences with addiction (Ramstad is Rep. Kennedy’s AA sponsor) and their work on legislation requiring insurance companies to provide the same coverage for mental illnesses as they do for physical illnesses. Ramstad and Kennedy  are chairmen of the House’s bipartisan Addiction, Treatment and Recovery Caucus.

In October, Congress approved Ramstad and Kennedy’s so-called mental health parity bill, which Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) initially championed before his untimely death in 2002. The bill was used as the vehicle to pass the $700 billion financial rescue package.

Ramstad may see less opposition as SAMHSA head than he would if named “drug czar.” While several interest groups oppose Ramstad as “drug czar,” sending a letter to Obama criticizing his opposition to needle exchange programs and medical marijuana, mental health and addiction advocates praised him.

“Appointing Jim Ramstad as SAMHSA director would raise the profile of addiction disorders within the agency,” Lizbet Boroughs, the deputy director of governmental relations at the American Psychiatric Association, said. “The past two administrators have been more mental health experts than addiction disorders.”

SAMHSA had not been decimated by budget cuts during the past decade or politicized. The biggest challenge is coordinating federal policy at the local level, Boroughs said.

Andrew Sperling, the director of legislative affairs at the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said Ramstad would be a “fantastic addition” to the agency.

Other advocates, however, had a more tepid reaction.

“It’s a mixed bag at best,” Bill Piper, the director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, said. “On the one hand, heading SAMHSA would put him in a good position within the Administration to champion the cause of implementing ‘parity’ fully. And he would no doubt fight for higher overall levels of drug treatment spending and be able to build Republican support in Congress.”

“But at the end of the day the most important issue isn’t funding for treatment per se, but funding for quality treatment. For years Rep. Ramstad’s parity bills excluded methadone and other Opioid treatments proven by decades of research to be the most effective treatment for heroin addiction,” Nadelmann said. “This was a subject of dispute between him and Senator [Paul] Wellstone (who was the lead sponsor of the Senate version).”

Despite the buzz over Ramstad, his supporters acknowledged there are other candidates and that Obama is getting advice from other sources, including Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick, an early supporter of Obama’s. Patrick has worked to increase spending on programs to help children coping with mental illness.

“Ultimately people have this is the president’s pick, at the end of the day,” the Congressional source said. “A lot of people are advising Barack and he will take a lot of suggestions from a lot of people and make up his own mind.”

A spokesman for Ramstad did not return phone calls for comment.

Related: Up in smoke: Will Ramstad’s faith-based earmark hurt his chances to win drug czar post?

Jonathan E. Kaplan is the Center for Independent Media’s Washington correspondent.