Observer » New York State Assembly

Facial Recognition! New York's Lawmaker Look-alikes

Emily Atkin — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:00:16 -0400

Is it just us, or do many of our elected officials remind you of someone else? Yes, Tom DiNapoli, we're talking about you.

Seriously, New York's halls of power are starting to resemble an old episode of "Night of 1,000 Stars!"

Check out New York's Lawmaker Lookalikes >>

(By the way, one more resemblance of note—that of this very feature to Spy magazine's beloved "Separated at Birth" column. We know. We get that all the time.)

Silver's Courageous Concession Is a Breath of Fresh Air

Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:34:44 -0400

Times like these should bring out the better instinct of our elected officials. Unfortunately, as we know, that's not always the case. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill seem determined to shut down the federal government just to make a point. Some Democrats are demanding even higher taxes, especially on a group loosely defined as "rich." Hard times can bring out the best in some people, as they did during the city's fiscal crisis in the 1970s. But hard times encourage demagogues as well.

Fortunately, New York State's dire finances seem to be encouraging statesmanship rather than cheap populism. When Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver recently acknowledged that the poorly named "millionaire's tax" is doomed to expire at the end of the year, it was a sign that reality is beginning to sink in among Albany's leaders.

Mr. Silver's concession took no small amount of courage, for most of his fellow Democrats in the Assembly desperately want to extend a tax hike on incomes of more than $200,000 a year. The tax is due to expire in December, and both Governor Cuomo and the Senate Republicans are happy to let it die. But Assembly Democrats would love to be able to spend the estimated $1 billion that the tax would raise in the fiscal year beginning April 1. They would love to create a political firestorm over the issue, if only to make themselves feel better when they lose, as they inevitably will.

Instead, Mr. Silver has conceded that the time has come to move on to other ideas. "I am realistic and I am practical," the speaker told the Post's Fred Dicker. Without the support of Mr. Cuomo, he said, the tax will expire.

As well it should. New York simply cannot tax its way out of its mess. Mr. Cuomo knows that; the Senate Republicans know that; and now it seems as though Mr. Silver knows that, too. With that issue settled, Albany's leaders can begin to figure out new and creative ways of reducing spending and unnecessary or outdated services while keeping pain to a minimum.

Mr. Silver very likely will have a hard time selling this to his fellow Democrats. That he seems prepared to attempt to sell it speaks highly of his understanding that this is not the time for soak-the-rich faux populism. Now is the time for solutions, not cheap political theater.

How Hakeem Jeffries Became the Barack of Brooklyn

David Freedlander — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:32:58 -0400

The emcee invoked Matthew 16:24. "Jesus said to his followers if anyone wants to follow me, he must say no to the things he wants. He must be willing to even die on the cross and he must follow me."

Hundreds of parishioners had gathered in the basement of the 96-year-old Brown Memorial Church in Clinton Hill for Pastor Appreciation Night. But before they could settle in for a dinner of green salad, fruit cup, turkey with stuffing and grilled tilapia, they had to sit through a keynote address-and more of the emcee.

"We know this man is talented," he went on. "And we know he is going to do even bigger and better things, but we also know how much he has sacrificed. ... The one, the only, the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries!"

The parishioners and many far beyond central Brooklyn have been expecting bigger and better things from Hakeem Jeffries since before he was even a candidate for the Assembly. His funky first name, his appeal to both black churchgoers and earnest reform types and his academic pedigree-graduate degree from Georgetown University, law degree from N.Y.U.-have earned him the label "Brooklyn's Barack."

"He's got charisma, he's personable, he's bright, he's good-looking, he's got a great family," said a local lawmaker who has served alongside him. "I think if most of his colleagues were being honest, they would tell you that they wouldn't mind being him. It's a good thing he's a nice guy, because it overlooks the fact that people are jealous as hell of him."

Mr. Jeffries, 40, has been floated for various offices up and down the ballot, from dark horse mayoral contender in 2013 to attorney general. But what has political circles buzzing is his long-talked-about run for Congress, perhaps as soon as next year, setting up an epic battle against the 28-year incumbent, Ed Towns.

When asked about a run, he refused to rule out the possibility. "I certainly don't envision being in the Assembly for the balance of my career."

At Brown Memorial, Mr. Jeffries, who grew up in Crown Heights, stepped into preacher mode, dropping his "er's," swapping out "isn't" for "ain't," punctuating his speech with "Can I talk?"

It was a different man than the one who, in interviews, speaks in deliberate and thoughtful paragraphs; who after law school went to work at the white-shoe law firm Paul, Weiss; and who eschewed becoming a partner in order to run for the Assembly in 2000 against Roger Green, a two-decade incumbent and a favorite of the Brooklyn Democratic machine.

"It was just at that moment I believed Roger Green had lost some steam," he said. "I believe people should have choices, and I decided to present myself as another choice."

Mr. Jeffries was just 29 but gave Mr. Green a scare.

It took another two years to go from obscure Brooklyn political striver to something of a national face for good government. Then, as Mr. Jeffries was laying the groundwork for another campaign, Mr. Green redrew the home that Mr. Jeffries shared with his wife and two young sons out of the 57th Assembly District entirely.

"Brooklyn politics can be pretty rough," Mr. Jeffries said in a 2010 documentary about the ways in which politicians manipulate redistricting. "But that move was gangster."

In an interview in the pastor's office at Brown Memorial, Mr. Jeffries was looking typically bespoke-pinstripes and purple tie, with a matching purple pocket square.

He said that losing to Mr. Green and then having his house deleted from the district set him on his political path.

"When I was cut out, I made the absolute determination that I would challenge Roger Green again because of the principle involved," he said.

The next year, he had a chance to gain his first foothold in electoral politics when City Councilman James Davis was assassinated at City Hall. Labor groups wanted Mr. Jeffries to replace him, but Davis' younger brother, Geoffrey, wanted to keep the seat in the family. Mr. Jeffries tried to talk Mr. Davis out of running a few days after the shooting, knowing that even if he didn't run, whoever did would win. Mr. Davis insisted on carrying on his brother's legacy, and Mr. Jeffries stepped aside. Mr. Davis went on to get swamped by Letitia James, a staffer to Roger Green and now one of the strongest contenders for the central Brooklyn Congressional seat that Mr. Jeffries covets.

The funny thing about that seat however, is that it is not exactly available. Even though Mr. Towns has become an increasingly scarce presence in the district and was recently removed from his post as the ranking member of his House committee, he has given no indication that he intends to retire.

Mr. Jeffries has been a shrewd political operator-his detractors see him as overly calculating-since he finally won the Assembly seat, in 2006. He is a favorite of Brooklyn political boss Vito Lopez, but he is also close to a group of reformers who want to oust Mr. Lopez. He has come down in the middle of the heated fight over Atlantic Yards. His district includes some of the most rapidly gentrifying parts of Brooklyn, including Fort Green, Prospect Heights and Clinton Hill, but he has made a name for himself racking up legislative victories on issues that may matter more to the desperately poor precincts that surround those neighborhoods, including the outlawing of the NYPD's stop-and-frisk database.

If he takes on Mr. Towns in '12, he could have a clear shot at the longtime congressman. If he waits, he could see a Congressional district redrawn to better suit his political base, but he could face the prospect of running in a crowded primary that would feature not only Ms. James, but also Councilman Charles Barron.

Mr. Barron, a fiery former Black Panther who has taken to heckling Andrew Cuomo at his public events, is something of the anti-Jeffries.

"Why would I comment on Hakeem Jeffries?" Mr. Barron asked The Observer. "You only want to profile him because he is more acceptable to the establishment. He makes y'all more comfortable than I do."

As 2012 inches closer, Mr. Jeffries is keeping up a frenetic pace. In the past week alone, he went to four church services, including the one at Brown Memorial; two panels on redistricting reform; a funeral for a constituent; a 50th birthday party for another; and a handful of Black History Month celebrations. Seemingly everywhere there is a line of people waiting to speak to him, from the reporters at obscure foreign-language newspapers who want his opinion on Cathie Black (he is leading a lawsuit to have her waiver revoked); to the teacher's union rep who interrupts an interview on school closures to say, "Hey, pretty eyes"; to the earnest and bespectacled young men who want advice on how to start their own political career.

At Brown Memorial, Mr. Jeffries hit all the right notes. He quoted Martin Luther King. He talked about how black politicians like Barack Obama, David Paterson and Charlie Rangel are constantly under attack. He talked about the African impala, an animal he said had a phenomenal ability to leap and run but could be constrained inside a 3-foot-high fence because it won't jump over something if it doesn't see where it will land; he just as easily could have been talking about himself and his future-and that of central Brooklyn.

"I think there are a lot of folks out in the community who understand that change must happen but because they can't see clearly the outcome, they prefer just to stand in place," he said. "It's fairly obvious that if you take this leap forward, you won't be disappointed in where you land."

dfreedlander@observer.com

Marshaled Plan

Eliot Brown — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:52:16 -0400

The 1948 Marshall Plan for Europe was approved with a four-year, $13 billion appropriation by Congress.

Lower Manhattan's four-year Marshall Plan, apparently, will need a refill.

In one of the few actions that both the State Assembly and the Senate managed to take in the last month, the length of a major subsidy package aimed at renewing Lower Manhattan¹s business climate was doubled, passing at a time of extreme budgetary strain for both the city and state. The measure, which went through with little objection or notice, is another hometown victory for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the powerful Lower Manhattan-based legislator who was the subsidy package¹s main proponent. All told, the incentives are projected to cost the city and state more than $200 million over the next four years.

The story of the incentives goes back to May 2005, when Mr. Silver called for a new subsidy package to renew downtown, terming it the "Marshall Plan for Lower Manhattan." Later that year, the Legislature passed what was to be
a more than $200 million plan, with rent subsidies and tax exemptions at the World Trade Center, along with a set of breaks for office tenants, landlords and retailers throughout downtown. The bulk of the subsidies, which built on previous breaks, were billed as temporary at the time, with many expiring this year.

In a telephone interview Tuesday, Mr. Silver said that downtown¹s business climate is still at a point where incentives are needed to attract tenants, justifying the renewal of the Marshall Plan.

"I think everything has slowed down downtown," Mr. Silver said. "The rebuilding of ground zero obviously has taken severe delays, so if you come downtown, you will still see that there is an area that is still in need of a revitalization.

"I think it's a worthwhile investment to the city and state," he added.

BUT IN THE EIGHT years since the terrorist attacks of 2001, there has been a tremendous array of subsidies thrown at Lower Manhattan, begging the question: How long will the government continue to prop up the district? In the attacks' aftermath, the Bush administration committed $20 billion to the area's recovery, and taken with some already existing subsidies, the roster of government incentives for businesses and landlords is now a thick alphabet soup of acronyms and program names: There is the Job Creation and Retention Program (JCRP); the Lower Manhattan Relocation Employment Assistance Program (LMREAP); a commercial rent tax savings program; liberty bonds; sales tax savings; energy savings; and more.

Any business tenant wishing to move to Lower Manhattan has a wealth of these programs at its disposal, and a recent analysis by CB Richard Ellis for Silverstein Properties found that four incentives would shave about $7 a square foot off the rent for future tenants of the World Trade Center--a major bit of savings.

And though Lower Manhattan hasn't exactly become a vibrant coequal to midtown (it's been the less attractive cousin for decades now, in terms of top office space), the downtown office market is in a dramatically different place than it was when the Marshall Plan was passed in 2005. The vacancy rate for downtown office space, then at about 12 percent, is now at 8.7 percent, according to Cushman & Wakefield, one of the lower levels seen in the past two decades (though it's probably on the rise). Asking rents, then $31 a square foot annually, are now $43.

The four-year extension of the Marshall Plan pertains to two types of tax breaks: an abatement of the commercial-rent tax south of Canal Street, and a sales-tax abatement on equipment used to set up commercial space south of Murray Street. The city estimates the subsidies will cost it about $30 million this fiscal year, according to numbers provided by the Office of Management and Budget, and the state's budget office estimates it will forgo about $18.6 million. The amounts are projected to be similar or greater in future years, meaning that the two governments will likely forgo more than $200 million over the next four years as a result of the Marshall Plan and its extension.

All this has left anti-subsidy advocates, who were critics of the 2005 subsidies, rather frustrated.

"If there was a cohesive, well-thought-out plan that took in the various needs of Lower Manhattan from the get-go," asked Bettina Damiani, director of Good Jobs New York, "would we, in 2009, be talking about extending more
benefits, when literally, there has been billions and billions of federal dollars?

"This, again, pits certain parts of New York City against each other."

Politically, there was no apparent resistance at all, perhaps a testament to Mr. Silver's strength in Albany. It was pushed through the Assembly, and it passed the Senate, where it was sponsored by freshman Senator Dan Squadron. The governor signed the bill this weekend, and the mayor's office supported it.

Just how to disperse subsidies and incentives around the city is, of course, a policy choice based on how and where lawmakers want to most encourage growth. Manhattan's West Side has its own set of tax abatements, and there
are abatements available to office tenants outside of Manhattan.

Liz Berger, president of the Downtown Alliance, called the Marshall Plan subsidies "absolutely essential," saying that the delays at the World Trade Center and uncertainty over the future of downtown infrastructure justify additional incentives. The downturn in the economy only adds to the case, as the gap narrows between midtown and downtown rents.

"Lower Manhattan is not immune from this crisis, but it comes to the table with one hand already behind its back," she said. "We hear from brokers and owners on a regular basis that these incentives make the difference."

ebrown@observer.com

A Silver Lining

Joe Pompeo — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:20:52 -0400

While the State Senate dithers, the State Assembly passes, and among the bits of legislation approved in the lower house in recent days was a bill that would extend mayoral control over the city’s public schools. Credit Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver of the Lower East Side for recognizing the importance of this measure and not pandering to critics who apparently pine for a return to the bad old days of Fortress Education at 110 Livingston Street in Brooklyn.

The old Board of Education was unaccountable and inefficient, staffed with political patronage hires and time-servers. Successive mayors were unable to tear down the walls that separated New York’s schoolchildren from the delivery of a sound public education. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, however, has succeeded where others failed. That’s why the board’s old headquarters on Livingston Street is now a condo, and accountable educators have taken up residence in the Tweed Courthouse, home of the Department of Education.

Mayoral control of the schools was due to expire this month, inspiring thoughts that pressure groups might lean on the Democratic-controlled Assembly to either block continued reform or water down mayoral control so drastically that the schools would return to the education bureaucrats who mismanaged the system for so many years. Mr. Silver, who is hardly a friend of Mr. Bloomberg, realized that mayoral control has produced real results in the classroom. And so he and other key Democrats, including the Education Committee chair, Catherine Nolan, voted in favor of the new, successful order.

Now it’s up to the State Senate—a scary thought indeed. The good senators have not had a chance to vote on this vital issue because they’re not sure who’s in charge. Perhaps they’ll get around to the people’s business one of these days.

Silver Said He’s Likely to Support Congestion Pricing

Katharine Jose — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:52:38 -0400

From Downtown Express:

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told Downtown Express Wednesday he is likely to support congestion pricing, but the Albany power broker also said passage is still in doubt.

Silver said he is hoping to make changes to the mayor’s plan to charge drivers $8 to enter Manhattan south of 60th St. weekdays from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Even in the current version, though, Silver said “Personally, I probably would [vote for it], but as it stands right now I’d be in the minority.”

Silver has been resistant to congestion pricing, most likely because it has weak support in the Assembly overall. According to the article, it is supported by his primary challenger, who says it will benefit the district with better air quality and transportation.

Bloomberg Hosts Assembly Thursday Night

Azi Paybarah — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:44:48 -0400

Michael Bloomberg will woo Assembly members at a dinner in Gracie Mansion Thursday.

An event for both the Assembly and the Senate is annual, but this year Bloomberg may have some specific goals in mind. Testifying in Albany today on Eliot Spitzer's budget—which cuts $500 million in fund promised to the city—he made the plea that New York City get its "fair share" of state money. The mayor is also hoping to get more legislators on board with congestion pricing (which both city and state lawmakers have to approve in order to tap into millions of dollars in federal funding), his proposed cigarette tax increase, and other issues.

When asked about the event, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser emailed this statement:

"The Mayor hosts the entire Assembly and the entire Senate to a reception or dinner at Gracie every year, except for once when we hosted the Senate in the Governor's room at City Hall. It's one of the reasons why, with only a few exceptions, we've gotten everything we've asked for from Albany over the years."

Back to Albany?

Azi Paybarah — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:36:51 -0400

The Assembly and state Senate are heading back to Albany on Thursday, according to a knowledgeable source. And Liz too! (added)

Since there is an agreement (sort of) on congestion pricing, and on campaign finance reform, expect some of that legislation to sail through both houses.

And maybe some gloating around the hallways about Eliot Spitzer's latest headache, courtesy of the Cuomo report.

Meeks on Hillary, Obama, Congestion Pricing, His Future

Josh Benson — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:36:58 -0400

New York City Congressman Gregory Meeks has been calling Hillary Clinton "Madame President" for some time now, but he is "very proud" of her closest competitor, Barack Obama, seeing him as a great choice for president — in 2016.

In a long-ish interview, Meeks also implied that he sees himself as a potential Secretary of Commerce or Secretary of State in the next administration, assuming, that is, he first fulfills his quest of “helping Hillary Rodham Clinton become the next president of the United States of America."

Meeks, who alludes on his web site to his being part of a "generational shift" in black leadership, predicted that Clinton win among African-American voters.

"You'll see that Hillary Clinton will get her fair share of African- American votes, that she'll beat Barack Obama," he said. "And on the same token...I'm very proud of Barack and what's he has accomplished over a short period of time. He raises the hopes and aspirations of a whole lot of individuals that, indeed, maybe America can change and is changing."

He added: "I think that as race moves on, you'll see that Barack will get his fair share but Hillary will get more than his share. Cause that's one of the things that folks always forget about the black vote - it's never, and has never been, monolithic. The black vote has been something that always has voted their interest, you know."

Meeks also spoke on congestion pricing (he supports it), the future of the Democratic Leadership Council’s brand of Democratic centrism (he says the party should still be embracing it), the trips he has been taking on Clinton’s behalf.

Here's a longer transcript of the interview:

OBSERVER: I want to read you a quote, and I'm very curious where you come down on it. It's Barack Obama, talking about his reverend.

“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through. He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.” Where do you fall?

MEEKS: Well, I look at the issues of — you know, after the Dr. King and the civil rights movement, the question of, as he said in one of his last speeches, 'Where do we go from here, a community of chaos that had come a long way basically, we've got a long way to go, and there is now some basic inequalities and injustices that are in the system...' Now that we've fought for the rights of voters...there are still plenty that remain and remain today. And the fight was to get people into positions so that they could begin to make a difference there. And I think that's part of what my responsibility is. Some people look at the civil rights movement and say that meant everything was equal and okay. I don't think that was Dr. King's vision; Dr. King's vision was we need to get to this position so that we can now begin to cure some of the injustices that are latent in the system, and so the next phase of the civil rights movement is, is to, for example, economic. So therefore, to a great deal, when you think about it - when you think about social justice and racial equality - then, you know, really they're linked, and all part of the same goal.

OBSERVER: How do you think the African-American vote is going to play out between Senators Clinton and Obama? Will there be that divide between the so-called new generation of black leadership going for Obama and the older generation with the Clinton? Or, in the end, do you see the vast majority of African-Americans ultimately siding with Obama?

MEEKS: Oh no, I think that you'll see that Hillary Clinton will get her fair share of African-American votes, that she'll beat Barack Obama. I think that individuals vote, vote their best interest and because - well, what happens is I think African Americans in the large part vote what they feel, like Barack said himself, he... is encouraging people to vote who they believe is the best candidate regardless of race, and I think that that's what you're going to see as Hillary gets more steady, and looking at what's taking place, I think you're looking at the current situation that we're currently in. We need leaders today. And on the same token...I'm a strong Hillary supporter, but I'm very proud of Barack and what's he has accomplished over a short period of time. He raises the hopes and aspirations of a whole lot of individuals that, indeed, maybe America can change and is changing. So that they can look at an African- American candidate and all people, regardless of race, can look at them as a serious candidate. And Barack is going to play a huge part no matter what takes place in this race afterwards...addressing the policies of the US of America. But I think you're going to see more and more black-I think that Barack will get his fair share, but I think that Hillary will get, get a large share, and I think she's starting to pick up right now even with the younger African-American women in particular. So I think that as race moves on, you'll see that Barack will get his fair share but Hillary will get more than her share. Cause that's one of the things that folks always forget about the black vote: it's never, and has never been, monolithic. The black vote has been something that always has voted their interest, you know, That's something people don't, don't realize. You know, black votes voted for Republicans for a long period of time because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and they thought that was in their interest. They began to vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was a Democrat, in the 20s and the 30s, because they thought that was in their interest. And then after Roosevelt, you know, for a long period of time no one knew where blacks were going to vote because blacks were not sure whether Democrats or Republicans were in their interest, until 1960 with the whole piece with King and Kennedy...Goldwater became the Republican nominee and then it became clear the divide between Democrats and Republicans with regard to blacks' interest. And so it is that blacks will vote their interest and the same thing will be in Democratic primaries when they have candidates that they believe will take their interests and concerns at heart, they will vote their interest, and so, therefore, it's not a monolithic vote, it's a vote based upon what they believe their interests are.

OBSERVER: But with Clinton and Obama sharing many policy positions, won't many see it as more in their interest to see an African-American role model leading the country?

MEEKS: Well they're starting to see it right now. They see it in the leadership of Barack Obama in the Senate and the fact that he's running and the way that he's running. They see it in the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee here, Charlie Rangel, and what he's doing. They see it in the leadership of individuals like Bob Johnson, CEO, and [Richard Parsons] from Time Warner. They see it in that kind of leadership. They see that kind of leadership of African-Americans in all different factions. And they see clear and distinct leadership

- some political, some business, some labor. In Barack what you see right now, back in [the past] the feeling was this would be a member of the House - now you can't just be a member of the House, but a member of the Senate, and not just a member in the Senate, but a leader in the Senate. And then, that you can be a candidate that can run for president of the United States, win lose or draw, you know, and be able to garner support from individuals not just based upon race but based upon equality of that leadership and the hope and the aspirations of which you can bring in. He is building upon, what Barack is doing, he is on the next stage if you will, he is building upon what I believe Jesse Lewis Jackson did in '84 and '88, and he's just taking it to the next step. And then someone, either Barack cause I don't believe he's going to do it now, but maybe he can build upon it for eight years from now or someone else can.

OBSERVER: So for Obama: maybe eight years down the road?

MEEKS: I think that's a very real possibility.

OBSERVER: I read that you've been calling Senator Clinton "Madame President" for some time. How does she respond when you call her that?

MEEKS: Well, you know, when she called me to say ultimately that she was running, what she said was, 'You've been calling me Madame President now. You can help me work towards making that a reality."

And what she does is she looks at this thing as hard work -- I mean she's one of the hardest workers that I've seen -- and she looks at it as focusing on a marathon race and so now when I talk to her it's not jokingly calling her Madame President anymore, it's 'What do we need to do? The work we need to do to get this thing done.' So she's very focused -- and as a result everyone around her is very focused

-- on make sure we're doing the kinds of things that are necessary to enhance her campaign and get a message out there of the quality of her candidacy and why she is the right person at the right time for the United States of America.

OBSERVER: What, specifically, has she asked you to do recently in helping that effort?

MEEKS: I'm preparing, we've got five days a week here in Washington D.C... and I travel the country, meet with folks and talk to folks.

You know, we are always talking to our colleagues here in the House trying to get those who are undecided to go one way or the other, to come support the Senator, and so you're always like a surrogate to the campaign and to her.

OBSERVER: You endorsed Senator Kerry very early. Now Senator Obama is in some polls gaining on Clinton in some polls - South Carolina. Are you concerned?

MEEKS: Oh, I'm not concerned. You know, I'm confident that Hillary - that Hillary will win. But we've got great candidates running on the Democratic side, so should someone else be president of the United States, I think they may need a little, a little more help and a little more time...than Clinton, but I think that they would all be great presidents of the United States. Clearly much better than the one we have now.

OBSERVER: About you – you’ve won an award for Congressional leadership and have been called a rising star in the Democratic Party. If Hillary Clinton does become president, and were presented with the possibility of a job in her cabinet -- or a run for her Senate seat – what would you do?

MEEKS: You know...I think we're living in global economy and moving forward in that world. And there's a number of areas where I can be helpful, whether it's USTR, whether it's commerce, in those areas, or bringing countries together, or even something in the State Department. It's those things that I think I could be beneficial in.

OBSERVER: Maybe Secretary of Commerce?

MEEKS: Yeah, look: that's how you're dealing with this global economy so you can make sure when you're talking about nations, there's two forms, the oldest forms of relationships. One is trade, commerce, working together with nations, and the other is war. And I'd like to be able to prevent the war and talk about the commerce and how we can become more interdependent on one another and work out some of the issues in that regard, dealing with the global economy.

OBSERVER: No interest in the Senate seat that might open up?

MEEKS: Well, that's another thing that is--well, of course. You know, I've learned in this business that you never say never to anything. I never thought that when I was elected to the Assembly, that I'd be sitting here in Congress right now. I'm one that I'm just focused on making sure I do the best job I can on behalf of the people of the Sixth Congressional District, and the city and the state of New York and thereby the United States, and as opportunities present themselves, you look at them at that particular time. But right now I'm focused on doing the best job I can for those that I represent and helping Hillary Rodham Clinton become the next president of the United States of America.

OBSERVER: You're a leader in the DLC. Is there still a place in the Democratic Party and the country for the kind of Clintonian Democratic centrism that you are a proponent of? Or are the netroots and more traditionally liberal elements of the Democratic Party winning out?

MEEKS: No, I think that America is much more in the middle than they are to one extreme or the other...We won the House basically in those seats that were toss-up seats -- they could go either way -- and I think that's why you find that the differences in the Senate and in the House are so close, because it's exactly where America is. It's really in the middle. Now you happen to have your strongest seats of course on either side, that are strongly Democratic or Republican, maybe strongly somewhat liberal or are somewhat conservative. But I think America as a whole is more in the middle. America wants to figure out how parties can do things that's best for the country as opposed to doing things that are just best for individual parties.

Unfortunately what has happened, the closer we are in numbers, the more dominant voices you hear from the extreme left wing or, extreme right wing of the parties. But you really get things accomplished doing things split down the middle. And I think the policies that the DLC talks about is creating policy that can basically benefit both segments of our population, whether you are rich or you are poor or in the middle, it focused on making sure you're helping the middle class - a strong middle class philosophy. But it also, within that strong middle class philosophy, its talking about how you can get those who are deprived, who are aspiring to be in the middle class, into the middle class, and I think so those kinds of policies I think are important. It's also, for example, you can't be pro-labor without being pro-business in my estimation. So it has a strong labor. You look at the DLC, a lot of labor unions that are participating and a part of it as well as business organizations. You need both if you are going to have a thriving economy. And that's the DLC and the Clintoninan type of philosophy, and that's why you have the kind of prosperity that we had during the '90s under Bill Clinton. We need that again in my estimation.

OBSERVER: Is Obama too far to the left?

MEEKS: Well, I think Obama, if you look at some of his policies, is moving more and more to the middle. I mean what you have is a Democratic primary where a lot of folks have a tendency because the way primaries are. But if you look at his overall voting record since he's been in the Senate, you can't say that he's been to the extreme left...in fact he was criticized early on by some of the extreme left, but he...couldn't do that because he has to represent all folks as the senator for the entire state of Illinois.

OBSERVER: On a more local issue, what are your thoughts on congestion pricing?

MEEKS: Well to me, I agree that we’ve got to do something in regards to the environment...the question is just how you do it. If you're going to have congestion pricing with those individuals who happen to be from the outer borough, then you have to have the appropriate mechanisms of transportation for folks to get in and out the city of New York, particularly those who have to work. So you need more. For example in my district...it has to be easier access. We need more types of public transportation, whether it's downtown Manhattan from Jamaica...You just can't say, "Do congestion pricing" and not come up with creative ways of increasing public transportation to and from the city. I think the mayor has some of that in his proposal, and if he continues moving in that way -- and I haven't had the chance to talk to the mayor or anyone else in my regard -- I would need in a district like mine, with part of the community not in reach of a subway immediately. So how we are connected, do additional lines, and make sure we have access to public transportation I think is the key...so I'm not against what the mayor's plan is, I just need to talk to him a little bit more or the members of his team and we can just make sure that all of Queens and all of New York have access to the city by public transportation.

OBSERVER: As a former assembly member, you have a lot of experience with the political, institutional dynamics that are playing out right now. What do you think about the amount of influence Sheldon Silver and the Assembly have right now, particularly over decisions concerning New York City?

MEEKS: Well, I think he has as much control as the members of his delegations choose to give him. He has to go to the body because that's ultimately who's got to vote. And if the body decides that there is something that they want or that is significant, then I've known Shelly to be one to listen. So I'm sure that there are conferences that are being held among members and conversations among members in Albany, that is happening on a continuous basis. And we'll figure out what's going on. So I don't say that one man has the power; I say that that body has power and should be powerful. That body of the members of the Assembly, just as the body of the members of the State Senate, and the Governor. So the three legislative bodies -- the Senate, the Assembly, and the executive -- they have the power and they have to deal with it among themselves.

OBSERVER: You said there are two tasks really on your mind right:

your district and electing Hillary Rodham Clinton president. What are thinking right now with regard to helping your district? Is immigration on your mind?

MEEKS: Immigration, of course, is an issue that's very important to me -- number one given my district, number two given the importance to the country -- and I think that we need to get something done, whether it's the bill that came out of the Senate or not is two different things, but we need to look at it and to tweak it and we need to force ourselves to sit down and work something out, because I think that is vitally important to get the immigration bill done.

What I think is also important in my district is the economic revitalization in the district to make sure we have the balance of commercial and residential development going, no overdevelopment in regards to either one of them, but good balance - and that's what's tremendously important in the district and I think probably the number one issue that we need to do in the district and probably in the city of New York. The mayor is moving in the right direction - and that's strengthening our education system, because when you're dealing in this global economy... education now has become more important than it ever has, and if an individual does not have a quality education today then they are almost doomed for the rest of their live not to have as good a life, a better life for themselves and their families. And I look at the graduation rates and dropout rates of some schools in my district. It is a grave concern to me, and so I'm really looking to see what we can do about that and how we can improve that and get some of these young people in school so that they can have a quality education and thereby be law-abiding experiences as opposed to having to finance them in prison cells.

OBSERVER: What is the next thing you're going do for fulfilling Senator Clinton's request to you?

MEEKS: The next thing that I'm probably going to be doing is at the next vote, I'll be sitting down and talking to some members of Congress on the House floor who are undecided, trying to convince them that Senator Clinton is the best way for them to go. That’s the very next thing that I'm going to do because it will be done in the next 45 minutes to an hour...I'll be on the road -- going throughout the states, a number of states on her behalf, meeting with individuals and talking to them -- and trying to help raise some money also -- as to why I believe Sen. Clinton is the best person to be the next president of the United States of America. So there's nothing limited with reference to where I've made travels on her behalf, speak, organize, raise money, try to get additional volunteers into her campaign, convincing individuals...that supporting Hillary Clinton is the best thing they can do now for the United States of America.

OBSERVER: Anything else on your mind?

MEEKS: Only other thing that's on my mind that I might add is that I think it's tremendously important for us as Americans right now living in this age of globalization, is not to become protectionist now, is not to start looking inward now, and not to think that that those two oceans can separate us from the rest of the world. We have to think how we can better engage with the rest of the world, because the danger of not engaging is much greater I think than if we do, and as a result I look and see that a third of the members of Congress, for example, don't own passports. That's a grave concern. We have to get out there, interact with other countries because doing that, it shows leadership. In this time, when America for the last 15-20 years, we've become the world's only superpower, and the question is what will we do with it? Will we just be inward looking and thinking about ourselves only at the cost to others? Or do we figure out how we continue our greatness and with that greatness lift other countries around us, developing countries, other countries around us?

Can we help pull them up also so that they can enjoy some of the benefits that we enjoy in our economy... If we don't think that way then I think that our lives as the only superpower could be a short one. And I think that we've got a lot to give, we've got a lot to lead and in this day and age that we're living in, and so I'm also focused on making sure that we understand that and we begin to work with and help developing countries throughout the world, work with other countries that may not think exactly like us, so that we can have a better Earth and share the Earth. The Earth has become so much smaller in the last twenty years than it was previously, and that's why we gotta focus on it, because it's going to take all of us to preserve this place called Planet Earth.

OBSERVER: And who knows? You could be the Secretary of State leading that effort two years from now.

MEEKS: ‘Who knows’ is correct.

Shelly Time

Azi Paybarah — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:25:12 -0400

Here's the crowded hallway behind the Assembly Chambers where (mostly) Democratic Assembly members are hanging out, grabbing food and beginning to file into the conference room now that Sheldon Silver has arrived.

They're about to meet to try to reach consensus on how to approach the last four days of session.