Mr. Coyne Goes to Washington

Wrap-up

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:53:00 +0000

OAW 2010 wrapped up on Friday with our last day of meetings. As is often the case, Congress was out of session, so most members had gone back to their districts/states on Thursday night, which tones down the atmosphere and energy on the Hill. It also usually means that we get more focused attention from the staffers we meet with, who are not torn in as many different directions with their bosses out of town. The exceptions to that rule this week were the staffers whose offices are deeply involved in bank reform, who spent the day knee-deep in negotiation of new rules for derivatives.

Now I'm finally back at Hard Times Cafe having my traditional OAW lunch of Chili Bubba and sweet tea. I'm usually here just before OAW starts, not after it ends -- just another tragic delay indirectly caused by a volcano named Eyjafjallajoekull.

Before I wrap up this blog for the year, here are a couple of random items I now realize I let slip by through the week:

- On Monday, three of us (myself, Kathleen deCarbuccia and Jackie Bugnion) were interviewed by Brian Knowleton of the New York Times. The interview was not for a specific article, but was part of Brian’s years-long, ongoing effort to keep up with our issues, so that he can publish something when the time is right.

- I discovered this week that accessible wifi has finally reached Capitol Hill. That came in handy for on-the-fly research between meetings, but didn’t help much with this blog. After I posted one item using Capitol Hill wifi, I got an error message each time I went back to the blog and couldn’t access it again. Here’s what it said: “Access restriction. The category listed is filtered due to unsafe content. Reason: Sex.” I don’t know what sexual content the system found in my ramblings, but hopefully that will help drive traffic to the blog.

- Looking back at the five years I’ve been doing OAW and, in particular, the three years I’ve been doing this blog, I now realize that I should have been giving an annual award to the strangest staffer we encounter. This year’s award would have to go to the military affairs staffer we saw in a certain Senate office (we sometimes see the military staffer because they also cover foreign affairs, which is the category some offices put our issues into). When I say “military affairs staffer”, I’d bet you’re picturing a frighteningly large jock with biceps as thick as the tires on my Jeep. What was noteworthy about this particular military affairs staffer was how many ways she was not what you are picturing. First of all, she was a she; second, her voice was dog-whistle-high-pitched; and third, she was decked out in eight shades of pink. She looked like a schoolteacher, but on the inside she is probably the Marine you were picturing.

Looking back at the week, I think this OAW went relatively well, particularly in light of the extraordinary obstacle thrown at us by our new nemesis Eyjafjallajoekull. Many of our delegates from Europe were unable to attend, but were still able to participate in certain meetings by conference call. The rest of us were either already in the US or were able to reroute through another part of the world to get to DC.

My hope is that our work this week on tax laid the foundation for future change. While it is unlikely that Congress will act quickly to address the issue, they hopefully won’t move quickly in the other direction either by repealing the foreign earned income exclusion that so many overseas Americans count on. Most offices told us that wide-ranging tax reform is likely in the next year or two and that it was important for us to be there this year (as it will be next year) to plant our flag on this issue so we are not, yet again, the low-hanging fruit that is picked to pay for something else.

I end this week even more convinced than before that in order to make concrete progress on our issues, we need to take this effort up a notch by enlisting new sources and types of support and by creating a PAC through which we would centralize our resources and manage our initiatives. If you have thoughts on how to do that or any other feedback on our advocacy work in Washington, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at andy@aaro.org.

Write a letter

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:15:00 +0000

A recurring theme in our visits to Capitol Hill over the years is the feedback we receive from many offices saying that they need to receive letters from their constituents before they can help us with our issues. Even when they understand that there are roughly six million of us abroad and that we therefore represent, on average, 2% of their constituency, they often tell us that they need to actually hear from some of those 2% directly in order to act. This make perfect sense and is arguably a positive reflection on the system -- they want to take orders from the people who elect them, not from an association that may or may not have actual members from that district. So we need you to contact your Senators and your Representative.

Along the same lines, we are sometimes told that we need companies to contact the Representatives representing their districts and the Senators representing their states, since they often represent a lot of jobs back home. In particular, they need to help make the connection between tax policy and trade promotion by telling Congress that double taxation is impeding their ability to send their people overseas to compete effectively in foreign markets.

Whether the message is coming from an individual or a company, there are a few key points I would suggest including. First, ask them to support the Working American Competitiveness Act (HR 1798). Similarly, we would advise that you ask them to oppose the provision of the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010 (S 3018) that eliminates the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Finally, it would be useful to ask members of both the House and Senate to join the Americans Abroad Caucus.

If you would like a model letter to send to Congress (either from yourself or from a company you're affiliated with), just contact me by email at andy@aaro.org.

The Great State of Minnesota

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:43:00 +0000

You never hear people refer to their states as "the mediocre state", "the below-par state" or "the patently worthless state". Every state always seems to be a "Great state", sometimes even with a capital S -- "the Great State". Maybe, in giving themselves that moniker, they don't even mean it to be relative to other US states. Maybe they're just oh so slightly greater than say, certain Mexican states, Swiss cantons or German Länder. I just don't know.

In any event, I've never been to Minnesota, but won't argue with its Great State nickname because it's turning out to be quite a Great State for overseas Americans. This week, we have met with three very supportive members of the Minnesota Congressional delegation and I'm starting to think this pattern might be more than a fluke. The offices of Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Congressman Ellison were particularly receptive to us and seem to understand our issues better than most of Capitol Hill. If you're from Minnesota, then please email me at andy@aaro.org because I would like to work with you to get even more of the Minnesota delegation on board.

The only other state delegation I've ever seen coalesce like this is the delegation of my home state of South Carolina. When I first got involved in OAW, Senator DeMint was our primary champion. Since then, my Congressman, Joe Wilson, has become extremely outspoken on our issues. Also, the office of Congressman Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking member of the House, has become a great source of advice and assistance for us. If we could turn Minnesota into our next South Carolina, then that only leaves 48 other Great States left for us to win over.

WACA Thursday

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:45:00 +0000

My primary focus has changed from one OAW to another. Before last year, I was either working as a generalist, working on all of our issues simultaneously, or focusing on the representation issue, i.e., trying to create and then build up the Americans Abroad Caucus. But last year and this year, I have been specifically working on the tax team, focusing on drumming up support for the Working American Competitiveness Act (aka WACA or HR 1798).

Yesterday was a productive day for WACA. I had three meetings in which I met with Congressmen themselves instead of their staffers, which is relatively rare for us and is greatly appreciated when it happens. The staff meetings are of course great as well, but when you have direct access to a member of Congress, you can make your case directly, instead of having it filtered through someone who may not be quite as passionate and persuasive about it as we hopefully are.

I had seven meetings yesterday, but the three with actual members of Congress were the best. All three of them were interested in WACA and we hope that they will soon agree to co-sponsor it once their staffers vet the details. As mentioned before, there are currently only two names on that bill -- Representatives Meeks and Paul. These three others would be great additions to that short list, for several reasons. I hesitate to mention who they are because I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but they are bipartisan and strategically important members of Congress. I will need to follow up over the coming weeks with these Members (as well as the other Members and staff I have met with this week) and try to turn that interest into actual sponsorship. We will need to have as many overseas Americans as possible send some letters. More on that later.

Political action

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:21:00 +0000

One issue on many people’s lips yesterday, among the overseas Americans I am working with and some of our friends and partners, was an idea that I have been discussing with many people for a long time, of creating a political action committee. The PAC idea is essentially this: among our issues, we have one issue – tax – that is worth several billion dollars to us, so we, as a community of roughly 6 million people, should be able to raise funds to spend on our political advocacy work in Washington, in addition to the relatively small sums that AARO, ACA, FAWCO and others currently spend (most of the AARO volunteers’ expenses, for example, have long been paid by us individually, not by the organization).

With a PAC, we would be able to regularly get advice from a professional lobbyist, contribute to campaigns of candidates we would like to help get into office or help keep in office, and do other things to get the word out on our issues. That would not just apply to tax -- I only mention tax above because it is a specifically financial issue, but of course many people would be equally motivated to contribute to a PAC to support us on voting, banking and other issues. A PAC is the next logical step if we want to take our political advocacy up a notch and have more of an impact on Capitol Hill.

The key stumbling block, however, is fundraising. We know there’s a need for this and there should be more than adequate funding, but no one knows exactly how to reach out to 6 million people and convince them to help us help them. Each person could contribute a maximum of $5,000 a year (which in many cases is a lot less than what they're spending on unjustified US taxes). Of course, many people would contribute at much lower levels than that and if enough of them did so, it could make a big difference for us on the Hill. If you have advice on how to reach out to potential donors and encourage them to contribute, then that will help us move forward on this idea. Just email any ideas to me at andy@aaro.org. We need your help!

TGIW

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:09:00 +0000

Now that I live in Saudi Arabia, having moved from Paris to Riyadh a year ago, I am on a different work week and have gotten used to the idea of Wednesday being my new Friday. So although we were only half-way through OAW 2010, yesterday felt like the culmination of our week. Yesterday evening, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) – who represents my hometown, Hilton Head Island, SC – hosted an OAW reception at the Capitol Visitors’ Center, which was sponsored by one of our supporters, Clements International, an insurance company that provides services to overseas Americans.

At the reception, Representatives Maloney and Wilson spoke very eloquently about the needs of overseas Americans and how they want to assist us with our issues. Also in attendance were Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), representatives of various other organizations we work with (FVAP, EAC, MECACC, etc.), and staff from many congressional offices.

First casualty

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:32:00 +0000

On Day 2 of Overseas Americans Week, we had some very productive meetings on the tax issue.

For those of you not familiar with the issue, here is a brief summary: Overseas Americans are subject to double taxation by the countries they live in and the United States. No other industrialized nation does this. A French, English, Japanese or other businessperson who leaves home to work abroad is taxed locally, but not by his or her country of origin. This not only creates an undue burden on people who want to work overseas, but it also puts American businesses at a disadvantage compared to their trade competitors. So it is bad for us and bad for export industries that should be generating new jobs back home. For details, see www.overseasamericansweek.com.

Fortunately, a bill has been introduced that would largely solve this problem. Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY) has introduced the Working American Competitiveness Act (HR 1798) to remove the cap from the foreign earned income exclusion provided by Section 911 of the Tax Code. He has one co-sponsor on the legislation, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). One of our goals is to find other co-sponsors for that legislation, particularly among members of the Ways & Means committee, which would need to approve the legislation before it could be considered by the full House. We met with several such offices today and, while we received no specific commitment of co-sponsorship, we feel that we have made inroads that may turn into support soon. One staffer in particular remembered us from last year’s visit, remembered our arguments on the tax issue and seemed much more able to help us this year than a year ago.

We were also able to meet with Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC), thanks to my friend Lindy Birch Kelly, who works in his office. Congressman Clyburn is the Majority Whip, one of the most powerful leadership positions in Congress. By stopping by the Majority Whip’s office each year, we are guaranteed to receive invaluable advice on our issues, as we did this year.

One funny thing happened on Tuesday. Following a meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building, two other OAW delegates and I were heading for the elevator, each loaded down with our laptops, position papers, and books. As we struggled with our materials, we saw a man walking towards us who very obviously was a Senator. If the hair, suit, and purposeful walk weren’t clear enough signs, then his “Good afternoon. How are you today?” and wide smile made it obvious. As he passed us, one of the women I was with (whose identity will be withheld, for her own protection) accidentally bumped into him, throwing him to the ground. We apologized profusely as he awkwardly got up, smiled and hobbled back to his office. So if you see anything on the news about a Senator suffering an unexplained broken leg, then please give me a heads-up: he’s the first casaulty of OAW 2010.

“Get used to it”

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:00:00 +0000

On Monday, the first day of OAW, we received some advice from a Congressional staffer that is noteworthy for its pure straightforwardness. We are always glad to get direct feedback, even when the person we are speaking with is delivering bad news.

The context: One of our main issues this year is banking services. Overseas Americans are facing increasing difficulty obtaining banking services, both in the US and abroad. Both problems are linked to US law and regulations. Many US banks are closing existing accounts and refusing to open new ones, often claiming that the Patriot Act prevents them from having overseas customers. Meanwhile, some foreign banks are closing accounts and refusing to open new ones, claiming that increasingly burdensome US banking and securities regulations make compliance too difficult.

The feedback: We are speaking to members of Congress and staffers dealing with banking issues to educate them on the problem and attempt to find solutions. And the frank feedback that we received on Monday was simply this: “Get used to it because it’s only going to get worse.” The staffer in question appeared to understand the issue, be interested in finding solutions for us, but bluntly warned us that things are likely to get worse before they get better. In his view, US regulations will continue to increase the burden on overseas Americans and other governments will begin to adopt similar approaches, creating additional difficulties for us and for their own citizens around the world. Hopefully in the meantime, this staffer and others like him will take up our cause and try to find ways to fight that trend so that overseas Americans are able to open and maintain the bank accounts they need.

For details on banking services or any of our issues, refer to our position papers at www.overseasamericansweek.com.

Our nemesis named Eyjafjallajoekull

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0000

Welcome to the third-annual installment of Mr. Coyne Goes to Washington, a weeklong blog chronicling Overseas Americans Week (OAW). OAW is organized by three organizations representing Americans living abroad – the Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), American Citizens Abroad (ACA), and the Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas (FAWCO). OAW 2010 is taking place from April 19 through April 23.

Leading up to this OAW, the other organizers and I were very excited to be bringing what would have been the largest-ever delegation. We were expecting to have approximately 25-30 people coming to DC from France, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Then along came a volcano named Eyjafjallajoekull, which as you know has conspired against millions of well-laid plans. We don’t know what Eyjafjallajoekull has against us in particular, but we’re holding a grudge. Yes, anti-volcano legislation is in the works.

But that hasn’t stopped OAW from getting underway. We have important issues to tackle, most notably tax, banking services and voting. Despite the difficulties for people traveling from or through Europe, we have been able to get thirteen delegates from our organizations and affiliated groups to DC and kicked things off on Monday morning. Adjustments are being made on the fly, but the show must go on. Stay tuned.

Recess

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:50:00 +0000

I have yet to be fully briefed on all of the meetings I did not personally attend this week (I was in about one-quarter of our meetings), but what I have seen myself and what I have heard so far from others is very positive. Here’s a brief, preliminary overview:

Tax: In the 110th Congress (the two years from the Democrat’s take-over of control of Congress through Obama’s election to the White House), there was a Republican bill on the Senate side and a Democratic bill on the House side. I am hoping that both of those will be re-introduced shortly. If they are, we will need to generate support from the other party on each side (i.e., Democratic support in the Senate and Republican support in the House). As I have said before, our issues do not generally fall victim to a partisan divide, so we can usually get support from someone on each side of the aisle in each house of Congress on any given issue. We seem to be making progress doing exactly that on tax this year – we have identified possible Democratic supporters in the Senate and possible Republican supporters in the House.

Voting: I am less familiar with voting than with tax because I have focused primarily on tax this year, but can report that legislation has been introduced in the 111th Congress to pick up where we left off in the 110th and possibly go a little further. These are not the same bills from the same sponsors as in the 110th, which is a good sign that people are taking a close look at what was proposed in 2007-08 and updating their respective bills accordingly.

Representation: Our objective on representation over the past few years has been to increase the size of the Americans Abroad Caucus. Since we do not have our own delegation of Senators and Representatives to represent the 5-7 million of us (as, say, we South Carolinians have two Senators and six Representatives to represent the 4 million of us), one mechanism that we have for ensuring representation of our interests in Congress is this caucus. The Americans Abroad Caucus is made up of members of Congress who generally support our issues and want to give us a more effective voice in Congress. We won’t know until weeks or months after OAW how successful we have been in recruiting new members, but the feedback has been positive and we hope to have made progress.

Part of the OAW delegation is still in Washington doing one last day of meetings on Friday. The rest of us have already left, as has much of Congress since a two-week recess began after the budget was passed last night. I have a one-year recess that started at the same time -- I left Washington last night and came down to South Carolina for a quick two-day visit with my parents and siblings before heading back to Paris. Then in a few weeks I will be moving to Saudi Arabia, where I will be practicing law in Riyadh. I hope to remain very active in AARO and continue participating in OAW each year.

I’m looking forward to OAW 2010!

Photos

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:47:00 +0000

Here are some photos from OAW 2009:

OAW reception on Wednesday evening
Talking to Congressman Holt at the reception

OAW dynamic duo Don & Mary Adair Johnson
Eric Way of FAWCO
James Kigin posing with POTUS
OAW morning meeting

OAW delegates after briefing for Caucus staffers

Andy & Lucy Laederich of FAWCO at the morning planning meeting

OAW delegate James Kigin with Senator Klobuchar
(James, thanks again for the photos this year!)

Washington, State of Mind

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 06:48:00 +0000

Last year, I blogged about the Washington state of mind, which I think we can all agree (we can all agree on something, right?!), is very unique. Every year I notice something different and this year was no exception.

On the Metro, the train drivers announce the last stop in Virginia before you enter DC and the first stop in Virginia as you leave DC. Instead of saying “Virginia” or “the state of Virginia”, they say “the Commonwealth of Virginia.” After the third time I heard that it clicked with me – Metro drivers are trained to be history buffs/poli sci geeks, which is just so DC.

In the Metro, the farecards usually have a background image you hardly even notice, like a picture of a panda at the National Zoo. Now things have changed – the image on one of the cards I got this year was of Barack Obama. As far as I know, this is the first time a president (or even a human) has been on a Metro card, so it was presumably politically motivated. Can I get a discounted card with George Bush on it? I didn’t ask.

Change

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:01:00 +0000

Given the radical changes in Washington and the dramatic times we’re living in, I wondered what the environment would be like this year in Washington. What I’ve seen is a combination of excitement about a fresh start and a certain amount of trepidation in the face of the almost unprecedented economic challenges currently facing the government.

One interesting facet of the excitement is the fact that it is not limited to the Democrats. Of course, the Democrats are thrilled to be in control of both Congress and the White House and see almost endless possibilities of legislative change on all fronts. But at the same time, some Republicans feel somewhat relieved to be back in the minority, for at least three reasons: first, it gives them a chance to unify the party behind the core principles that they feel define them; second, it puts them back on the offense, where they can challenge the majority and not lose focus defending their president’s policies and third, it gives them a break from being associated with a President whose popularity had sunken to historically low levels. Now they can refocus, start over and attack.

For our purposes, these partisan divides are of academic interest, but do not affect our issues very much. Our success or failure on our positions on taxation, voting and representation do not turn on partisan winds, but on the commitment of specific individuals. We find that once we have established a certain relationship with a particular member of Congress, partisan issues are largely irrelevant. Once people hear and really understand our issues, they have little hesitation in accepting our positions. Either they are interested or they are not, but they are rarely directly opposed to us. Being able to cross the partisan divide and have that sort of support on both sides of the aisle allows us to continue to move our agenda forward, regardless of who is in charge.

The Ask

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:10:00 +0000

We are now two days into OAW 2009 and have been having some great meetings.

One in particular stands out.

When we make the rounds on the Hill, we see a certain local or regional distinctiveness in many of the offices we visit. Sometimes it's just the photos and plaques on the walls, sometimes it's handouts of local products from the district (usually snack food -- peanuts, etc.), but sometimes it's a cultural difference you see in the people you are meeting with. There is no better example of that than the office of a member of Congress representing New York that we saw on Monday.

We sat down with this staffer and immediately experienced that exaggerated stereotype of direct, blunt and frank New York-ness. You would recognize this from the movies, except that he wasn't a fully-armed member of the mafia (that I know of), and his violence towards us wasn't physical, but purely verbal.

The staffer stopped us in our tracks as we were explaining a particular issue and demanded to know what our "ask" was. In other words, "we understand your problem, but what do you want us to do about it?"

This is a simple and obvious question, but the answer isn't always so easy. Some offices are the right place to talk to about introducing a bill into a particular committee, some for making a phone call to open some other important door for you, etc. Not everyone can do the same things for you on every issue.

Having a staffer directly confront you with the question, no matter how bluntly he does it, is a good thing. It forces you to think through the position you are taking and hone the message to that office. Some staffers just politely bob their heads and sit there making a shopping list so that they look like they are taking notes on everything you are saying. This guy was direct, confrontational and abrupt and I'm glad we went to see him. He wanted to know exactly what we want of him and by getting direct and somewhat harsh, he forced us to think it through aloud with him, which ultimately is better both for him and for us.

Of course, I'm glad that all 535 offices aren't as challenging as that New Yorker. If they were, this week would be even more exhausting than it already is.

There's no "I" in OAW

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:28:00 +0000

If you're reading this, then you are probably either an overseas American yourself or are a friend of overseas Americans. And we need your help. This is a group effort. There are over twenty of us here in Washington participating in OAW, but there are thousands of you out there who can lend a hand from right there in your living room. You don't even have to get up from your computer.

Everyone in Washington is competing for a limited amount of attention from Congress on thousands of issues, so we need your help to make our voice as strong as it can be. Here are some things you can do to assist OAW and, more generally, to help AARO:

- Tell friends and colleagues about OAW and AARO. Email your friends or post links to www.overseasamericansweek.com, www.aaro.org or www.aaro-oaw.org on Twitter, Facebook or wherever else you're active online.

- Join the AARO groups on Facebook, LinkedIn, Meetup and InterNations.

- Join AARO at www.aaro.org (join now for only 20 euros as part of our spring membership drive).

- Write a letter. Use our model letter to ask your Representative to join the Americans Abroad Caucus.

- Give us the names and email addresses of any media contacts that you may have -- political columnists, bloggers, journalists at papers read either on Capitol Hill or by the American community abroad, etc.

Thanks!

Robots, zombies and vampires

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:23:00 +0000

I had only been in Washington for three minutes when I saw my first political ad this afternoon in Reagan National Airport. Over the ensuing half-hour until I got onto the Metro, I was bombarded by ads for a wide range of causes, issues or industries -- oil & gas, electrical grids, wind power, environmental protection and diversity in housing.

The oil & gas ad made a particular impression on me, mostly for who it claimed to be representing -- the "people" of the oil & gas industry. In short, here was an ad that seemed to very clearly be presented purely on behalf of oil & gas companies, for their straightforward (and perhaps perfectly justified) economic interests, but the message was communicated in such a way as to be from "people", not inhuman corporations. The word "people" was even in italics and in a different font. It was as if they wanted to reassure you that no, the oil and gas industry isn't comprised of robots, zombies and vampires; they are normal people just like you and me.

All of this got me thinking about how rare it is for real people to be the direct beneficiaries of lobbying work in Washington and the fact that we overseas Americans are an example of that. In last year's blog I poked fun at the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association as an example of the typical assortment of corporate interests being represented on Capitol Hill. Countless other lobbying groups represent interests along the same lines -- an industrial sector, a group of companies making a particular product, etc. So it makes perfect sense that they would go to such effort to portray themselves as normal folks, not mere corporations.

We of course don't have to do that. We are as real as it gets. When we talk about citizenship, you can picture a parent uncertain about his or her ability to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child; on voting, we have the fundamental legal right to vote, but a web of confusing, inconsistent and impractical state and local rules can deprive us of the ability to exercise that right; and when we talk about taxation, you can picture an overseas American paying tax to two countries while his or her non-American friends live a simpler, more equitable existence.

We don't have to stretch the truth to describe ourselves as real, live human beings. We're a human constituency that needs a voice. We are moms and dads and brothers and sisters; somebody's best friend and somebody's work colleague. This human face is part of what distinguishes us from a lot of the visitors that Congressional staffers see day in and day out, which may explain some of the surprisingly interested, enthusiastic and sympathetic reactions we get in many of our meetings each year. Hopefully we will continue to elicit that reaction this year; it all starts tomorrow morning, with our first full day of OAW 2009.

Overseas Americans Week 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:29:00 +0000

Welcome back to yet another one-week installment of Mr. Coyne Goes to Washington, a blog chronicling the work of the Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO) and our sister organizations, American Citizens Abroad (ACA) and the Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas (FAWCO), during Overseas Americans Weeek (OAW), March 30-April 3, 2009.

Before going any further, one bit of housekeeping -- if you are on the email distribution list from 2008 and wish to be removed, just email aaro@aaro.org and our Office Manager, Christine, will gladly remove your name from the list. And if you're not on and want to be added, just ask Christine.

OAW is our annual lobbying trip to Washington, where we beg, plead and coerce members of Congress to do the right thing on our various issues, primarily voting, tax and representation. For more information, take a look at our position papers at www.overseasamericansweek.com.

We're looking forward to a busy, exhausting and productive OAW this year. We're hoping to make significant progress and may have some exciting news on some of our issues soon, so stay tuned!

Hard Times Café

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:31:00 +0000

Yesterday I began Overseas Americans Week the same way I do each year -- with a long lunch at the Hard Times Café in Alexandria, Virginia. As usual, I enjoyed a Hard Times specialty called the "Chili Bubba" -- two large pieces of cornbread smothered in veggie chili, sour cream and jalapeños -- while I worked on this year's OAW talking points on my laptop.

Hard Times Café is built on a theme of simpler, humble times. From the decor to the food, it's a no-nonsense, unpretentious experience. At Hard Times, you remember days long past when economic turmoil left millions in doubt and confusion. Sound familiar yet?

When Mollie and I discovered Hard Times while we were living in DC almost a decade ago, the idea of simple, hearty home-cooked meals for people on the down-and-out was essentially just a unique theme for a restaurant -- no more personally relevant to us than, say, the theme of an Outback Steakhouse or a Johnny Rockets.

Now it's a bit different. As I walked up to the restaurant, I realized that in the current economic environment, we are literally in hard times, which is on most people's minds (and lips) every day. The same thought had not occurred to me a year earlier at the same spot.

This all served as a reminder to me that we are coming to Washington at an extraordinary time for this country and for the world. Like so many others, we are approaching Congress to demand the redress of our grievances with various aspects of federal law and policy that uniquely affect us. We have to keep in mind that ours are not the only demands being made upon their time. A lot of people are going through some very hard times.

At the same time, some of our requests can be part of the solution. Our demand for fair taxation, for example, would allow American companies to more easily compete overseas, generating much-needed exports of American goods and thereby protecting export-driven jobs back home. In any event, we have to remember that ours are not the only issues in town; this year in particular, they will be viewed in the light of a larger context of hard times all around.

Mr. Coyne Goes Back to Paris

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:56:00 +0000

Finally, Overseas Americans Week is over and Mr. Coyne is going back to Paris.

I think that we had a very successful week, although we’ll know for certain in coming weeks and months as we see how many new Caucus members we have and how much support we get on our voting and tax legislation. Keep your collective fingers crossed. Seven million people have a lot of fingers to cross, but don’t forget to do your part.

Overseas Americans Week is always an uphill battle (please don't miss my puns, folks; up-Hill, get it?) because even though we are 7 million strong our issues are not at the top of the national agenda. We have to be here every year making our presence felt and our voices heard just to stay as far from the bottom as we can.

In so doing, we are contending with an unimaginably long list of competing interests. When I was in Alexandria writing my talking points at the Hard Times Café last Sunday, I got a good laugh on my way back to the King Street Metro station when I passed by the offices of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (its friends call it the “NSSGA” for short; I'm serious). When I saw that, it hit me that there’s a lobbying group for everything. Now that I have spent another week on the Hill crossing paths all day with hundreds of other such groups, it’s actually a wonder that the people behind stone, sand and gravel were able to heal whatever wounds and friction there may be among their three different industries (stone-throwing, if you will) and join forces to enter heated political battle against the forces of evil representing, say, paper and scissors (in the eternal clash among paper, rock and scissors) or, perhaps, the unholy forces of asphalt, cement and that snootiest of all building materials, marble. Then in the midst of this ongoing melee we the overseas Americans enter the fray. Even with the likes of cutthroat, arm-twisting lobbyists like Mary Adair Johnson, it’s an uphill battle to be heard.

And even when we can get in there and be heard, sometimes we’re not even sure what people on the Hill are talking to us about. But we learn on the fly, picking up the lingo as we go. Even the aforementioned chimp-level staffers know the terms we have to master to be effective. Say NSSGA, UOCOVA, HAVA, RHOB, CHOB, LHOB, TIPRA, GAO, CRS, JCT, OMB, and JEC five times quickly, tell me what they mean and you’re ready to sound just slightly less informed than the chimp-level staffers.

Sometimes the attention of the Hill is even focused into the distance out into the wider world, like down the street where the Pope was in town visiting with the President (I just watched his St. Patrick’s Cathedral service, after which he was escorted out of the cathedral by over-protective guards shoving dozens of tenacious nuns back into the crowd to keep them from touching the pontiff a yard away; I don’t know if those guys were NYPD, but they should be gentler with the nuns!). During the time that we were in Washington, there were also World Bank meetings, an earthquake in Illinois of all places and an endless list of other issues and events on the television. Is it any wonder that we’re not in the papers all that often?

And yet we are at least occasionally on the radar. We were in the Wall Street Journal just before OAW began and then had several members of the press at our reception on Wednesday, which may at some point lead to some interesting and helpful coverage for us and our issues.

It’s too soon to say how well this week went, but it certainly feels as though we accomplished a lot. Instead of meeting with fifty or so offices as usually, we made our way into an unfathomable number of offices—all told it was about 250 offices. Even if only 10% of those offices find us more interesting than the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and decide to help us out, then this was all worth it.

I have had a great week working with the rest of the OAW delegation. Joining me from AARO were our president Kathleen de Carbuccia, the dynamic duo Don and Mary Adair Johnson, James Kigin (to whom I owe a special thanks for his photos that I have included in this blog), Barbara Stern, Margaret Lebreton, Mark Habeeb (providing local lobbying assistance, advice and coordination), Janet Steinmetzer, and Kathleen Mistry (an AARO member who recently returned to Virginia from Paris and who joined us on Friday). From ACA, we worked with Jackie Bugnion, Gregory Smith (who prepared a great deal of documentation for OAW) and Berengere Parmly. From FAWCO, we had their president Celeste Brown, Lucy Laederich (FAWCO’s US Liaison, a title that means that she has the distinction of carrying around Cheez-Its in her purse for our general consumption), Eric Way (my roommate at the illustrious Hotel Harrington, Washington’s premier roach motel; catch your own rats in the dining room and get a discount on dinner!), Dale Koepenick, Michelle Miller, and Mary Stewart Burgher. Also joining us was Paula Lucas, who is working hard on issues affecting American women overseas who are subjected to domestic abuse; this was her first time working with us. We also of course worked with Susan Suinat and others from the Overseas Vote Foundation on the voting issue. I also have to send a very special thanks to AARO Office Manager Alice Grevet, AARO Intern Brittany Healey, Grace Teshima and Dianne Henning for all that they did on scheduling, technical assistance and other coordination from Paris to make all of this possible.

Signing off from Washington. It’s time for Mr. Coyne to go back to Paris.

Meetings on the Hill

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:02:00 +0000

I thought I’d walk you through what these Overseas Americans Week meetings are like. After all, the vast majority of what we do during OAW is run from one office to another talking to staffers, so I should tell you how we do the core of what we’re doing here.

First of all, here’s what we go in with: the basic items are our talking points (our internal OAW notes on what to say on each issue), the “Goals” sheet (which consolidates most of our position papers into a single page), the letter from Representatives Maloney and Wilson inviting their colleagues to join the Americans Abroad Caucus (the “Dear Colleague letter”), and a notetaker’s sheet. Most of us also had a Congressional directory, to be able to look up the Member whose staff we’re about to meet with for such information as party, district, committees, etc., all of which subtly affects what we say in the meeting (for example, a member on the Ways and Means Committee is extremely important to us on tax issues, so in those meetings we make a particular point of getting our tax message across). We all also had a combination of a number of other documents, including more detailed position papers, a packet of media clippings on our issues and a spiral-bound presentation of our issues—a PowerPoint with graphics, charts and other information that came in very handy. In each meeting, we handed out the Goals sheet and then distributed the other documents at our discretion depending on the circumstances; for example, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, we made sure to give the Dear Colleague letter to just about everyone because it included an invitation to the reception on Wednesday evening.

We started each day at 7:30 or 8:00 am with a planning meeting in the cafeteria beneath the Longworth House Office Building. Then we headed off to a day full of meetings, which generally started on the hour every hour, with between four and eight meetings being conducted by OAW delegation members simultaneously.

In each meeting, the basic idea was to explain our three main issues (voting, tax and Caucus) and make it clear exactly what we were asking for (support our voting legislation, support our tax legislation and join our Caucus). In so doing, we tried to stick to consistent messages on each, which we agreed upon in advance. On voting, the basic issue is one of equality (i.e., we want to be able to vote as readily as Americans living in the U.S.); on tax, our issue is economic development and jobs back home (i.e., taxing overseas citizens makes it difficult for American companies to send people out in the world to open up new markets, which is bad for business and ultimately affects jobs back home); and on the Caucus, our message is that we are constituents who need a voice (i.e., since our votes are spread out across all 50 states and all 435 districts, we don’t have effective representation on the Hill and need them to join the Caucus to give us that representation).

A lot of people are curious to know what sort of reception we receive in these meetings. I have heard a lot about previous OAWs from before I was involved (I started doing this in 2006). It seems that OAW delegations received a more negative reception in previous years because I have seen very little of that during my three OAWs. From what I am told, in previous years, OAWers were sometimes treated very poorly. I have seen little of that reaction from people on the Hill, making me think that our years of visits have had an effect.

There was one meeting this year where we received a reaction at the extreme positive end of the spectrum. As the OAWers entered the meeting, the staffer told them, through a huge smile, that she would soon be an overseas American herself. She had just been accepted to the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. She said that when she received our meeting request to discuss issues affecting overseas Americans, she took it as a sign of “the will of God.” Wow, that’s a good reaction. I wasn’t in that particular meeting, so the best reaction I’ve ever gotten is a glowing reference to one of our supporters in Congress. I am frequently told that the person is thrilled to talk to us because they love Congressman Joe Wilson, who co-chairs the Americans Abroad Caucus and represents my hometown of Hilton Head. But I’m sure Congressman Wilson would agree with me that attributing our visit to the will of God is several big steps up in terms of name-dropping.

The only negative reaction I received this year was during one of the first few meetings I did on Monday with James Kigin, who is new to OAW this year and was getting his first taste of lobbying. We sat down in the meeting, started our explanation of the voting issue and were immediately interrupted with, “well, just to play the devil’s advocate…” We then spent half an hour getting “well, just to play the devil’s advocate…” on each and every one of our issues. She hit us with so many devil’s advocate arguments that she left me wondering, does the devil really need an advocate? And if he does, does that advocate have to be in my meeting? As we left, James turned over the notetaker’s sheet and pointed at the line where we had to circle one word for an overall indication of the reaction we received: negative, neutral, positive, strong or champion. James looked at me and said something to the effect of, “is negative a strong enough word for her?” to which I suggested that, actually, we just might have to create a new category. After all, she advocated for the devil throughout the whole meeting. So we had one meeting with a staffer name-dropping God and another with a staffer name-dropping the devil. I didn’t see either of those coming.

Some people have asked me a lot of questions about who we actually meet with when we go into these offices. On rare occasions, we meet with a Representative or a Senator. Thanks to James, who is a constituent, he and I met with Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, as part of a weekly reception that she holds for Minnesotans. And I shook hands with probably eight or ten Representatives during the week, although in each of those cases the meeting itself was actually handled by the staffers. In most cases, this is fine, since the staffers tend to be extremely competent and specialized in the areas we are concerned about. This is particularly the case for tax, where there is always one particular staffer who handles taxation issues.

Sometimes it’s hard to figure out even who the right staffer is, though. One OAWer this week called for a last minute meeting with the voting staffer in a particular office. The receptionist said, “oh, uh, ok, I guess that would be the forestry and natural resources staffer, right?” “What’s natural resources have to do with voting?” the OAWer asked. “Oh! I thought you said boating!”

In a few cases, you just take what you can get and hope for the best. We occasionally meet with the Chief of Staff or the Legislative Director, but generally meet with a Legislative Assistant handing foreign affairs. LAs are usually very competent, interested and helpful, but you do occasionally get someone else and feel as though you’ve been stuck with the bottom-feeder in the office; not the high-level, mid-level or even low-level staffer specialized in your issue, but instead the chimp-level staffer who generally has a lot in common with our species, but somehow lingers just below our level on the hierarchy of primates. Don’t get too discouraged by this, though: I had this happen in maybe five of my fifty or so meetings and I had the opposite extreme of competence in far more meetings.

So when you notice that your staffer is only speaking in grunts, spends most of the meeting picking at fleas and ticks and gazes rapaciously at the plastic fruit on the table, you just say, as gently as possible, “could you pass along our materials to someone who knows how to . . . read?” If he or she smiles and nods, then the Goals sheet just might make its way up a level to a legislative correspondent or a deputy-adjunct-legislation-assistant’s aide. Or it could just get to another chimp. You never know.

Another interesting thing is where we meet with the staffers. The word “lobbying” is derived from the fact that most such conversations happen right there in the lobby. Some actually take place in the Member’s office if he or she is not around or in other rooms in the Member’s office suite. But sometimes you end up in little nooks and crannies without even a chair or table. Sometimes when there are too many people floating around in the Member’s office suite, the staffer will take you out in the hallway and just find a little free space to stand around out there to talk for a few minutes. Of course, we couldn’t care less—all we care about is getting that crucial 10 to 15 minutes that it takes to lay out our issues. Anything else—a long meeting of 30-45 minutes or a nice place to hold that meeting—is pure gravy as long as we’ve gotten our chance to explain our main subjects, educating one staffer at a time on the issues most important to overseas Americans.

One final note about our meetings – at least a few times during each OAW, we have unscheduled encounters with staffers and Members in the most unexpected of situations. On Thursday, James Kigin and I were walking across the Cannon House Office Building and bumped into Congressman Joe Wilson and his staffer Paul Callahan. Paul is a friend of mine and is our liaison to Joe for all issues involving the Caucus. Paul told us that he and Congressman Wilson were about to receive the Vice President of Afghanistan as he arrived on Capitol Hill. He invited us to join them, so there we were five minutes later, with Congressman Wilson and the Vice President of Afghanistan, who spoke only Farsi and therefore had an interpreter by his side. I never would have thought that my schedule that day was going to include greeting and having my photo taken with a foreign leader, but interesting things happen on Capitol Hill.

Caucus update

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:49:00 +0000

At Overseas Americans Week, we have some people specializing in a particular issue (usually one of our three main issues) and others who are generalists. I consider myself a generalist, but spend most of my time working on generating new membership for the Americans Abroad Caucus. That means that in my meetings I go through all three of our main issues and then I personally follow-up on and keep track of Caucus membership.

Here’s how we’re doing:

Before OAW, we had fifteen members. Here they are:

* Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Chair
http://maloney.house.gov
* Joe Wilson (R-SC), Co-Chair
http://joewilson.house.gov
* Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov
* Frank Wolf (R-VA)
http://www.wolf.house.gov
* Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
http://vanhollen.house.gov
* John Boozman (R-AZ)
http://www.boozman.house.gov
* Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands)
http://www.house.gov/christian-christensen
* Steve Cohen (D-TN)
http://cohen.house.gov
* Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
http://alceehastings.house.gov
* Kay Granger (R-TX)
http://kaygranger.house.gov
* Henry Waxman (D-CA)
http://www.house.gov/waxman
* Michael Honda (D-CA)
http://honda.house.gov
* Tom Davis (R-VA)
http://tomdavis.house.gov
* Michael Capuano (D-MA)
http://www.house.gov/capuano
* Susan Davis (D-CA)
http://www.house.gov/susandavis

Thus far this year, I have the names of three members of the House who have apparently joined (and I hope to have many more soon; cross your fingers). But since I don’t have that information officially yet, I shouldn’t mention them by name. In any event, here’s how we (hopefully) picked up those three members:

Member # 16: Mysteriously joined without even meeting with us. There is probably a special connection with Carolyn Maloney or Joe Wilson or another specific story that we just don’t know about yet.

Member # 17: This Member attended our reception on Wednesday evening to meet with Chairs Maloney and Wilson and to introduce himself to all of us. I believe that his staff had been visited by a member of our delegation earlier in the week. At the reception, he was very interested in our issues and learned a lot about what we were doing during OAW.

Member # 18: This is my favorite Caucus story. We have in our delegation one OAW participant who is actually a high-powered arm-twisting lobbyist, but is disguised as a sweet grandmother. When you meet Mary Adair Johnson (originally of Louisiana, then Texas and now Paris, France), you can hear the sweet tea and grits in her voice and are immediately lulled into passivity and acquiescence to anything she is asking for. You don’t even notice as she works her wicked lawyerly ways – her Jedi mind tricks – and convinces you to sponsor her bill, join her Caucus or sign over your very eternal soul on the dotted line.

As the voting hearing came to a conclusion on Wednesday, Mary Adair adeptly chose her victim from among the Members still present, wove her way through the crowd and went in for the kill. Smothering him with grandmotherly charm, she turned this Congressman’s ear, twisted his arm and converted his religion without him even knowing it – he had been a Catholic, but is now only a believer in one thing – the Americans Abroad Caucus. All thanks to Mary Adair.

In another note on the Caucus, we had one person tell us this week that “it would be just un-American not to join the Americans Abroad Caucus.” Hopefully that means that another Member will be joining shortly, unless that person was admitting to un-Americanness – an unlikely occurrence on Capitol Hill. Hopefully his sentiment will spread quickly. We’d love to have 435 Members in the Caucus.

Reception, taxation and the Americans Abroad Caucus

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:47:00 +0000

Wednesday and Thursday were very productive days for Overseas Americans Week. As on the other days, we met with about fifty offices each day – about as much as we had seen in an entire week during previous OAWs.

Wednesday culminated with a reception in the evening for the Americans Abroad Caucus. In attendance were current members and potential members and staffers from numerous offices. We also had press attending the event, including our old friend Brian Knowlton of the International Herald Tribune and our new friend Tai Aguirre, who produces a radio show on ABC Networks called “The Expat Show.”

For those of you who aren’t familiar with our issues, here’s the overview of what we’re trying to accomplish this year at Overseas Americans Week:

Our three main objectives at OAW this year are (i) building support for voting legislation, (ii) building support for tax legislation and (iii) increasing the size of the Americans Abroad Caucus. I’ve already told you about the voting issue, so I thought I’d bring you up to speed on taxes and the Americans Abroad Caucus.

Taxes:

The United States is the only developed country that taxes its non-resident citizens on their worldwide income. The only other countries that do this are North Korea, Eritrea and Vietnam (until recently, that list also included Angola, but the Angolans have apparently recently seen the light).

This means that we are taxed by the United States and by the country where we live and work. The end result is that the Treasury gets to raise a little revenue at our expense, but they also make it much harder for American companies to send people overseas to promote their goods and services, putting a dent in an already dented export policy. In short, it’s not just bad for us; it’s bad for jobs back in any district that cares about generating exports of American goods and services by opening up foreign markets. Our competitors don’t have this problem. A German, French or Japanese company can freely send its employees overseas without having to shoulder this tax burden.

Americans Abroad Caucus:

Since there are somewhere around 6-7 million Americans abroad, we constitute, on average, about 2% of any given Senator’s or Representative’s constituency. We vote in the last state and district where we lived in the US, so we are literally represented by 100 different Senators and 435 different Representatives. This diffuse representation means that we are often overlooked on legislation that affects our interests. Just one quick example: the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act (which one would assume would prevent tax increases) actually raised taxation of overseas Americans. If we had been a state of 7 million residents, that could never have happened to us. But as 2% of the average constituency of a member of Congress, we shouldn’t be surprised that TIPRA just prevented tax increases for the other 98% and raised taxes on the 7 million of us.

In creating the Americans Abroad Caucus, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) (who represents my hometown of Hilton Head Island) took a very important step in rectifying that problem. The purpose of the AAC is to keep an eye out for our issues on the Hill and look out for us. Being a member of the Caucus does not necessarily mean that a Representative will vote the way we would like on any given legislation, but it does mean that they will at least be there to hear us out – to help give us a voice on Capitol Hill.

Hearing on the voting bills

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:43:00 +0000

On Tuesday, the OAW delegation attended hearings on the voting legislation that we are here promoting this week. The hearing was entitled “Military and Overseas Voting: Problems and Progress in Ensuring the Vote.” Since I mentioned it on the blog, I know that some of you were watching via the live feed on the Committee on House Administration website and even saw the OAW delegation in attendance.

Since my friend Eric Way and I were seated almost directly behind the witnesses’ seats, I hope that as you watched, you noticed two well-dressed, attentive witness-watchers in action – both of us taking notes on our laptops all the while. If so, that’s us. If you saw two guys periodically nodding off, those were the staffers across the aisle from us.

Here are some of the highlights from the hearing:

Congressman Brady chaired the hearing and took testimony from Congressman McCarthy, Congresswoman Maloney, a guy named Mr. Dominguez representing the military (essentially representing the Federal Voting Assistance Program, FVAP), Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman, Kimball Brace (President of Election Data Service, Inc.) and then finally Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat (President and CEO of the Overseas Vote Foundation).

These witnesses were generally helpful and interesting, but two stand out in front of all of the rest – Congresswoman Maloney and Susan D-S of OVF. I think it is fair to say that these two women are the Queens of Overseas Voting – our Patron Saints of Democracy in Action. They should each have one of those titles on their business cards. Congresswoman Maloney fulfills her saintly duties from within the walls of the Capitol and Susan does so from the outside, banging on those walls from afar.

Maloney, a Democrat from New York and the chair of our beloved Americans Abroad Caucus, does not mince words. She kicked off her testimony by describing the legislation that she has introduced, then saying that she fears that her work will be “in vain” because of “the incompetence of the Federal Voting Assistance Program.” Congresswoman Maloney then described the Americans Abroad Caucus, which she said that she founded last year with Joe Wilson to “give these individuals a voice in Congress.”

On voting, she said that as many as 2/3rd of overseas votes aren’t counted and that these “errors result from the practical complexity of the system.” Her bill will make changes that ensure that our votes are counted. One example: states would be prohibited from rejecting ballots printed out off of the internet, one method often used by overseas Americans who do not receive their hard-copy ballots in time. The bill also extends voting rights to young American citizens living overseas, who often cannot vote without moving back to the United States.

Some of my favorite quotes from the hearing:

As a witness finished her testimony, the Chairman said, “I would like to thank the gentlelady” for her testimony. Gentlelady must be a Capitol Hill-only bit of vocabulary because I’ve never heard that anywhere but here.

Then Beth Chapman, the Alabama Secretary of State and member of the National Association of Secretaries of State, summed up her testimony as follows: “Robots sweep and vacuum our floors,” so these voting problems are “a travesty of justice.” Robots don’t sweep and vacuum my floors, but I agree with the rest.

She then made another juicy analogy, telling us that the purpose of one of the voting bills, H.R. 5673, is to do careful surgery on the existing voting system, which then morphed into disgusting imagery about perilous and bloody medical intervention. We almost forgot she was talking about voting. If I were on the committee, I would have voted for H.R. 5673 right then, just to clean up the operating room imagery unfolding in the hearing room. You don’t want to soil nice carpet like that.

Secretary of State Chapman at one point mentioned that registering to vote as an overseas American can take as much as 42 days, which she helpfully noted for us “is a month and a half.” I have doubled-checked this and determined that her calculation isn’t off by much; so much for all the jokes about education in Alabama.

Rep. Ehlers suggested that if the military can’t keep track of its personnel who want to vote, then “you might just want to give each of them a FedEx box” because FedEx and other similar companies keep track of 23 million packages a day around the world and could certainly handle voting ballots. I pictured the local FedEx delivery guy driving his truck onto an Iraqi battlefield to pick up ballots and wondered how that would work, but according to Susan D-S, they might soon be doing that - as a public service, no less - specifics to be announced soon by FedEx and OVF.

Representative Lungren chimed in on the delivery issue, noting that it “isn’t rocket science” to get FedEx to deliver ballots; also, rocket science would be handled by another committee.

Oh and for the record, in a Congressional hearing, the phrase “I would like to state for the record that…” actually literally means something.

Any overall conclusions come out of the hearing? No, not really. A lot of interesting ideas were tossed around and a number of favorable comments were made about the various pieces of legislation under consideration. But no decision was taken or concrete process laid out. I left with the impression that things will not be moving at the tempo necessary to get things done in time for the 2008 election. But you never know. We will have to stay tuned and continue to press our message of voting reform long after we leave Washington later this week.

Gettin' our fair hearing

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:31:00 +0000

Tuesday, April 15:

Our three main objectives at OAW this year are (i) building support for voting legislation, (ii) building support for tax legislation and (iii) increasing the size of the Americans Abroad Caucus.

On the voting issue, we've got some exciting action taking place on the Hill today that you are all welcome to tune in to watch.

Here's the short version of our voting story:

Back in the early 1970s, overseas Americans didn't even have the right to vote. In the mid-70s that all changed and now we can -- theoretically -- vote from abroad. But that rights comes with all sorts of technical problems attached to it.

There are two pieces of legislation pending on the voting issue and a hearing has been scheduled for today at 11 am that we will be attending and our friends at the Overseas Vote Foundation will be testifying at. If you'd like to watch the hearing live, visit the website of the Committee on House Administration at http://cha.house.gov at that hour and, if all goes well and their website has fewer kinks in it than the voting laws have themselves, then you'll be able to watch live video.

Tune in!

Bumper sticker land USA

noreply@blogger.com (Andy Coyne) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:11:00 +0000

Washington, like so many places, is far more than a place – it’s a state of mind.

I come from a place that is very much a state of mind – Hilton Head Island. HHI is a dreamy vacation destination, detached from the mainland by just enough distance – 5,610 feet – to make it a world unto its own, both a part of and yet separate from South Carolina, the United States and the whole of the North American continent. On that modest barrier island measuring no more than 55.5 square miles, a unique combination of golf, beaches, and stunning natural surroundings results in an equally unique way of life, a very Hilton Head state of mind.

Where I live now, Paris, represents such a distinctive state of mind, now chronicled in eons of literature, film and popular culture, that just saying the name of that city evokes dozens of images, ideas and idiosyncrasies that I don’t even need to list. When I refer to a Parisian state of mind, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Washington is the same way, but is harder to put your finger on.

In Washington, everything is somehow about government, public policy and debate. It was a backwoods swamp until it was chosen as the federal capital. Even up until the First World War, it was still a minor town, almost an afterthought in American life but for the existence of the federal government.

And now more than ever, with the nation divided by war, partisanship and an upcoming election, the Washington state of mind is in plain view all around us. Everyone has to have an opinion about everything, at all times. And from the Hill to the Executive agencies to the academic world to the think tanks, all of those opinions must be fully researched, analyzed and articulated for the world to witness. You can’t just have an opinion that you keep to yourself; you have to put it on a t-shirt, scream it through a megaphone or paint it on a banner for everyone to see.

If your car isn’t covered with bumper stickers, then is it really a car at all? Not in Washington. Even the license plates carry a political slogan – “Taxation Without Representation”, which says more about the Washington state of mind than any fake license plate slogan ever could anyway.

On the Metro, on the sides of buses and in the newspapers, the ads in Washington catch my eye and make me laugh. My favorite thus far on this trip is the following:

The caption reads “Life Can Be Beautiful”, which is followed by an enthusiastic and persuasive slogan – “Go Vegan!” The photo taking up the rest of the ad is of an amiable-looking young man smiling down at his innocent, would-be meal: he’s petting a chicken. The young man is possibly doing himself a favor by not consuming that dirty chicken and he’s certainly doing the chicken an even bigger favor by not eating him, but does he really have to pet it?

Here in Washington, that’s par for the course. You can’t just not eat the chicken. You have to smile at it and pet it, even if you contract bird flu in the process.