It was almost 9 pm when I realized that the end of the session was more than three hours away.

Senate leaders were no longer meeting with the Governor and House leaders to seek a compromise on utility rates, the Speaker informed us. We would be adjourning at midnight, I said to myself, but would be called back into special session to resolve the issue.

The first inkling of problems came late in the afternoon. The Speaker was trying to sell the Democratic caucus on the merits of a deal whereby BG&E would put $600 million for customers on the table. The company had initially proposed $150 million.

Several liberal delegates were upset that the legislation would not permit aggregation, whereby local governments could buy power wholesale and sell it to their residents at cheaper prices. They also wanted to override the Governor’s vetoes of the bills we had passed to give us leverage in the negotiations. That won’t happen if the Speaker doesn’t want it to happen, because he would never bring them up for a vote, I thought.

At 11:33 pm, the House gave second reader approval to a bill that reflected the compromise the Speaker had discussed this afternoon. At 11:52 pm, it passed third reader, 129-8. Too late to be voted on by the Senate.

When midnight struck, the confetti fell from the balcony as always, but there were no concluding remarks by the Speaker. I went up to the rostrum and told his legislative aides that the Passover Seder is Wednesday night. Jewish legislators would not be in Annapolis if we were in special session.

Blue state enacts far reaching health insurance plan. Republican governor offers some of the most innovative ideas and personally delivers letters to the homes of legislative leaders urging them to end an impasse.

House speaker urges adoption of two liberal provisions but settles for weaker versions of the two items in the final bill. Senate president has sharp disagreements with Speaker but works for compromise. United States Senator assists with critical Medicaid negotiations in Washington.

Was I daydreaming after the Orioles fell behind the Red Sox, 11-0, at Camden Yards tonight? No. All of the above took place - in Massachusetts.

And the secret word is compromise, something we haven’t seen much of the last four years.

Prior to this session, I blamed the Governor’s lackluster legislative performance on ineptitude. Given the extraordinary power of the office under Maryland’s constitution, I often said and wrote in this diary, he should never lose his Number One bill (slots) once, much less three times.

I now believe there is a method to this meager record. Deadlock in Annapolis becomes obstructionism on talk radio and elsewhere on the campaign trail.

Compromise solves the problem but does away with the soundbite.

“Legislators have been debating stem cell legislation for two years,” according to the story in this morning’s Sun that the Governor would be signing our bill today.

Granted, the bills that Senator Hollinger and I have crossfiled the last two sessions have been the subject of extended debate in both houses. However, they were preceded by:

House Bill 1171, Task Force to Study Stem Cell Research (2002);

House Bill 482, Stem Cell Research -- Donation of Certain Tissue for Research Purposes (2003); and

House Bill 1021, Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2004



I point this out not to find fault with the Sun but to make the point that a very controversial issue such as embryonic stem cells takes time and, in this instance, changed circumstances to pass.

The event which changed the equation was California’s $3 billion commitment to stem cell research, enacted by referendum in 2004. Losing our best scientists was now a distinct danger. My legislation had only four or five co-sponsors in the preceding years; it was now a House leadership bill co-sponsored by fifty members. Senator Hollinger’s bill had 16.

The Governor opposed last year’s bill. Two of his Cabinet Secretaries urged its defeat. No effort was made to broker an end to the Senate filibuster.

This year, the Governor put $20 million for stem cell research in his budget. However, he and his spokesmen said our bill was not needed - even as late as the day before the bill passed. Shortly after it did pass, the Governor underwent a conversion on the State House steps and told the assembled press that he would sign the legislation.

What counts now is who will be named to the policy-setting Stem Cell Research Commission. I’ll begin work on that shortly after we adjourn next Monday.

Positive news on several of my bills but a bad amendment on one of them.

Senate action was unanimous and unamended on my bill to provide classroom training for recent liberal arts graduates, as well as those changing careers to become teachers. Nothing more to do but show up for the bill signing next month.

Our bill to create a task force to study the Red Line mass transit system will not leave the Senate in the form it entered. Who will choose the community members of the study group is at issue. Will it be the Speaker and the Senate President or the Mass Transit Administrator? To be resolved by a conference committee. Passage very likely.

No Senate action on my bill that would limit the tort liability of the five public markets in Baltimore City by bringing them within the Local Government Tort Claims Act. However, the Senate has sent to the House a bill that would apply that act to the non-profit that serves as Carroll County’s public transportation authority.

I’ve drafted an amendment that would add the City markets to the Carroll County bill. A second bite of the apple or in this case, Berger cookies. (If you don’t understand the reference, go to the City markets and buy them.)

Two e-mails informing me that Senator Pipkin wants to work with me on when a sports agent must be licensed by the State before talking with family members of a student-athlete.

Yet another amendment to the price gouging bill. This one may render it toothless. The Attorney General’s Office is reviewing.

And the Orioles are still undefeated.

The door to the Governor’s legislative office was locked at 4:45 pm last Friday. The reason: enable the Governor to delay a veto on the healthy air bill until near midnight on Monday, the last night of the session - too late for it to be overridden.

If the door had been open and thus no legal dispute as to whether the bill had been received before the end of the working day, the deadline for the veto message would be Saturday, plenty of time for a 3/5 majority in both houses to express its will.

Is it the perfect Ehrlich metaphor, leaving early for the weekend, as one friend suggested to me?

There’s also the dispute over whether the State should take control of eleven low-scoring Baltimore City schools. Another politically savvy friend offers this scenario. The Governor’s office relishes the confrontation with the legislature and the images of special pleading and acceptance of poor performance by City legislators as they play out on tv screens in suburbia.

Of intense interest to political junkies now, these events will inform the impression voters take to the polls in November.

---

Of more immediate concern is my bill to prevent price gouging in the wake of a natural disaster or emergency. I first introduced it last year, at the request of Attorney General Curran. It didn’t pass.

In the wake of Katrina, a special hearing was held on the bill this past September. If a vote could have been taken then, the legislation would have soon found its way to the Governor’s desk. And the door would not have been locked.

But no votes are taken when we’re not in session. When the roll was called recently in a Senate committee, the votes were there for an amendment limiting the bill to disasters that took place in Maryland. Isabel yes, Katrina no.

The question today: should we accept the watered down bill? The answer: yes. It’s better to enact a price gouging statute, even a limited one, than to leave the session - and consumers, empty handed.

What do a retired General Motors employee and Tony Soprano have in common?

Both have health insurance. The GM employee because of labor contracts, Tony thanks to a no-show job with a refuse company.

The former may have to pay more in premiums if GM is to survive. Not a likely prospect for Tony, especially after Paulie kneecapped the yuppie inheritor of the carting business.

The “60 Minutes” segment last night on GM’s dwindling profits and workforce briefly mentioned that foreign automakers don’t have to provide for their employees’ health care because their governments do. Even Tony, on the other hand, had to deal with a “utilization care specialist,” trying to save costs by sending him home.

On the way to the hospital, we learned, the paramedic checked to see if Tony had insurance - to the county hospital he would have gone instead, if not. That would not be the case for a gunshot victim on HBO’s “The Wire,” shot in Baltimore, where hospitals cannot turn away the uninsured.

Life follows art. Today’s NYTimes op-ed page features a column extolling the virtues of Health Savings Accounts, written by Allan Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. The President may not read the newspapers or watch tv news, but his advisers get cable.

Me, I’m off to Opening Day at Camden Yards. I’ll be careful if any foul balls come my way.

A major election bill of mine is now on the Governor’s desk, without its being voted on by the Ways and Means Committee. And it meets the smell test.

House Bill 1406, the Voter Rights Protection Act of 2006, provides for increased public scrutiny and state oversight of the actions of the Baltimore City Board of Elections. The location of a polling place cannot be changed without public notice, at least 90 days before the election.

There will be regular reports to the state on the number and types of voter registration applications received, how many applications were accepted and how many were rejected, and why those applications were rejected.

In addition, no voter can be purged from the voting rolls within 30 days of an election. Any deletion that takes place more than 30 days in advance would have to be made publicly available on the Internet.

In my earlier diary entry about this legislation, I wrote that another election bill, House Bill 1368, Election Law - Voter Bill of Rights, “would be THE vehicle for election law changes in the House.” Today, that vehicle journeyed up to the Governor’s Office. Here are the steps along the way.

Senator Lisa Gladden crossfiled the Voter Rights Protection Act of 2006; Senate Bill 776 passed the Senate, 30-17. “THE vehicle,” HB 1368, was amended by the Senate and sent to a conference committee. The provisions of our crossfiled bill were added to HB 1368 by the conferees.

When the conference committee report was debated on the House floor, several speakers mistakenly said that the provisions of the Voter Rights Protection Act would apply to every local election board.

It only applies to a jurisdiction where less than 60% of the population lives in owner-occupied dwellings and the median income is less than $40,000 per year. Only one jurisdiction meets those criteria: Baltimore City.

Why only Baltimore City? The possibilities of voter suppression by manipulation of the mechanics of the election process are greater in the City than anywhere else.

---

"The States Confront Stem Cells" is an editorial in today’s New York Times about the passage of our stem cell bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/opinion/31fri3.html?ex=1144472400&en=4cea2ea79e1a8a15&ei=5070&emc=eta1

It’s preferable when policy and politics lead you to the same position.

I knew I had to support the legislation to block the takeover of eleven Baltimore City schools by the State Board of Education. In addition, my instinct told me after yesterday’s briefing that there had not been adequate consultation with the City school system, which was in the midst of reforming these schools.

It was reassuring to read the reaction in today’s paper of Bob Embry, former chair of both the State and City school boards: “I don’t think this action is necessary. I think the system is progressing.”

---

An unexpected stop in the Rules Committee for the bill extending the statute of limitations for child sex abuse. The legislation crossed over to the Senate in time to avoid that purgatory but wound up there nonetheless.

Our chairman had told us that the Maryland Catholic Conference supported the bill as we had amended it. The Conference’s website, updated 3/30/06, indicates otherwise. It says that the bill “would [not] prevent abuse, protect children, help victims, nor ensure fairness.”

Senate bills may not be voted on in my committee until our bill gets freed from Rules and assigned a hearing date.

---

A good legislative strategist always looks a few days ahead. I began the work day, as I normally do, by looking at the status of my bills on the legislative web site.

One is scheduled for a hearing next Monday at 3 pm. I have a prior commitment at 3:05 at Oriole Park. I called the committee and was able to get a rain check on that hearing. It will be Tuesday.

On the House floor today, prior to the vote on the stem cell bill, I said:

"We are about to conclude an extraordinary debate - a moral conversation about preserving life.

Many in this House and across this state believe that an embryo is a human life - worthy of preservation. Many others, with equal fervor and conviction, believe that preserving the life of a child with juvenile diabetes or a parent with Alzheimer’s merits the exploration of the potential in that embryo to cure those diseases.

Each of us has been touched by individual stories - family, friends, constituents, and even colleagues. Yesterday, we were moved by one member’s agonizing decision to pour eggs down the drain because they couldn’t be used for research.

This past Sunday, one of my best friends told me that her son, 21 years old, faces surgery to remove a tumor from his spinal cord - with a 20% chance, she said, that he will become like Christopher Reeve.

After the third reader vote on House Bill 1, I heard from a life-long friend, an administrator at Johns Hopkins. “Somewhere along the way,” he wrote, “ someone may live because of you. Even if it's one person--and it will be many more--it will be worthwhile.”

The Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006 is about a thing called hope.

I urge a green vote."

The bill passed, 90-48.

We held a press conference on the State House steps immediately after the vote. The Governor, following in our wake, told the still assembled reporters, "Everyone moved to the administration's position."

What that position is ain’t exactly clear. For the first 80 days of the session, the Governor and his spokesmen said that a bill wasn’t needed. Except when they were rendering inoperative statements in opposition to funding embryonic stem cell research by the Lt. Governor and a deputy Cabinet secretary.

Victory has a thousand fathers, President Kennedy famously said. However, they usually don’t deny parentage right up until the moment of triumph.

We are citizen legislators from varied backgrounds, part-timers with other jobs and responsibilities the other 275 days of the year. I was vividly reminded of that today as we debated and defeated amendments to the stem cell bill.

Curt Civin is a leading stem cell researcher at Johns Hopkins. I met Curt before he had an MD and I had a JD. We were contemporaries at Amherst College. Curt went on to Harvard Medical School; I went to Columbia Law.

We renewed our acquaintance when I introduced my first bill on stem cell research in 2002. In the four years since, Curt has taught me and other legislators about stem cells, and he, in turn, has learned how the sausage of legislation is made.

One of Curt’s pupils has been Pete Hammen, the new chair of the lead committee on stem cell legislation. Pete has a BS and Masters of Public Administration from the University of Baltimore. After he superbly defended the bill on the floor today, describing the science far better than I could, I told him he was now a Civin Scholar.

Pete wasn’t the only member who held my colleagues spellbound today. Bob Costa is a professional firefighter and emergency medical technician, with a community college degree. But what mattered today was that his seven-year old son was an in-vitro fertilization baby.

“I couldn’t afford to freeze these 16 eggs that weren’t implanted in my wife,” Bob told a silent chamber. “It was one of the hardest decisions you’ll make in your entire life. We poured those eggs down the drain because we couldn’t donate them for research.”

I was not the only one who was moved by the simple eloquence of his remarks.

I defended a bill on the floor today that I voted against in committee.

House Bill 69 would authorize the City of Annapolis to designate certain areas as drug free zones, comparable to the drug free school zones across the state. It would be a second offense - and a stiffer penalty, to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to distribute drugs in these areas.

I voted against this legislation in committee last week because it would impose a stiffer penalty for criminal acts in certain areas of Annapolis than would be the case anywhere else in the state.

I defended it on the floor today because my chairman was ill, making me the acting chairman. It is the chairman’s responsibility to defend the committee’s bills, whether or not he supports them.

Opposition today came from the Black Caucus, which was concerned that this stiffer penalty would be disproportionately imposed in lower-income, African-American neighborhoods. I stumbled initially in defending the bill but later hit my Socratic stride, parrying questions and criticisms from other delegates.

The Judiciary Committee accepted one of the Caucus’ amendments but rejected two. However, only 74 members voted against one of the amendments, raising doubt whether there will be 71 votes to pass the bill on third reader.

After the debate concluded, I went up to the Speaker to ask him a procedural question. “Welcome to the big leagues!” he said with a laugh.

My faith in the legislative process has been renewed.

This afternoon, my committee passed a bill allowing victims of child sex abuse to file a lawsuit against the perpetrator up until they reach the age of 42. The cut-off is currently 25. The one compromise we made was that this change will not re-open cases of people who are 25 or older.

The vote was unanimous. I'm sure that I was not alone with tears in my eyes.

This morning, the Catholic Church’s lobbying on this legislation was the subject of a Washington Post article. It described a phone call I had received from a rabbi last week, at the request of Cardinal William Keeler of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

The rabbi conveyed the Cardinal’s concern that Jewish legislators were sponsoring this bill. "To make a point of the religion of the sponsor of a bill is beneath contempt," I told the rabbi and the reporter.

Two weeks ago, I wrote in this diary: “For sure, members of the committee will attempt to force a vote on the [child sex abuse] bill. Still doubtful that will happen this session. But its day will come.”

What brought us to today’s unanimous vote: respect for the lead sponsor of the bill, Pauline Menes, who’s retiring after 40 years in the legislature; the tactics of those lobbying against the bill; the intervention of the Speaker; and most importantly, the personal witness of those who said:

“The only part I had figured out: there was no way I was telling anybody.”

“I always feared no one would believe me. Today my family is behind me.”

---

Earlier in the day, I had my moment of doubt about the legislative process. The center did not hold on eminent domain.

A constitutional amendment was offered by the Republican caucus in the Senate which would have prohibited condemnation for economic development. It was also supported by some of the Baltimore City Senators, who were concerned about “urban removal” of African-American residents.

Unknown was the position of the Governor. Is he with his caucus or with the business community, which supports eminent domain for redevelopment?

Since the votes weren’t there to defeat the constitutional amendment, the Senate bill was recommitted to committee. Ditto for the House version. I’ve since learned of an effort to revive the legislation.

We didn’t get a roll call vote on family planning yesterday, but we got one on stem cell research today.

A Republican delegate offered an amendment to eliminate the Governor’s appropriation for the research. I hand signaled the Appropriations committee chair: Did he want me to speak? He signaled back no; his subcommittee chair was already talking.

Normally, such an amendment would be defeated on a voice vote, leaving no record of who was for or against. But the word spread: ask for a roll call. The result: 46 for and 93 against. Every Republican but one voted for the amendment and against stem cell research.

Their opponents in swing districts may remind the voters of this vote this November. Such overwhelming opposition from within the Governor’s party heightens the speculation that he will let our stem cell research bill become law without his signature.

---

Walking into the House chamber, I told a lobbyist that we were working on language to amend a bill of interest to her in my committee.

“Language that does what?” she asked.

“That gets us the votes to pass the bill,” I replied.

I drafted a floor amendment to the budget bill but didn’t offer it today. Perhaps I should have.

A pro-life legislator offered an amendment last week mandating a strategy for reducing abortions among women in the Medicaid program, with emphasis on those performed because the pregnancy would have a serious effect on the woman’s mental health. An Appropriations subcommittee adopted the proposal.

My response: instead of rejecting this language, we should transform it into a positive vote for the pro-choice position. For making abortions safe, legal, and rare.

Make it a vote on family planning, a proven method of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, with broad public support. Require a report detailing a strategy for using family planning and other services to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies among women enrolled in Medicaid.

Instead of reflexively objecting to any change in the status quo, I contended to pro-choice delegates and lobbyists, we should seize the middle ground. It was the same argument I successfully made last session on the fetal homicide bill.

We could win on the house floor but wind up with a bad result from the conference committee, given the pro-life views of the likely members, responded some in our group. It could also set a precedent for tinkering with the compromise language on Medicaid funded abortions, now nearly three decades old. Plus, the subcommittee’s action had already been reversed by the full Appropriations Committee.

In light of those concerns, we decided that I would offer my language on the House floor only if the other side attempted to propose its amendment. However, I was heartened to hear today of a Democrat from a swing district who was very enthusiastic about my language.

The Speaker knew of our strategy. I would be immediately recognized if I sought to speak. But no one on the other side did, and my amendment was not offered.

I would have written a longer diary entry tonight, but I didn’t have the time. I just got back from Pimlico Race Course.

It wasn’t a last minute tip on a longshot that drew me there. It was a late afternoon phone call from the Executive Director of AFSCME Council 67, Glen Middleton, inviting me to an AFL-CIO dinner honoring Mayor O’Malley.

When you won your last election by 245 votes, and labor didn’t endorse you (after doing so in the four prior elections), you adjust your schedule - and your legislative agenda. I’ve introduced legislation which would give state employees the opportunity to make the case to their agency that their work shouldn’t be privatized because they can do the job better.

However, you don’t adjust your principles. Earlier today, a reporter asked me how an election year affects what legislation gets enacted. “Bills may get to the floor that might well have been studied further in a non-election year,” I replied, “But all legislation must still be constitutionally sound.” And, I would add, sound policy.

“I support you on this stem cell,” a labor official said to me this afternoon.

“Congratulations! You’ve worked on this issue for many years,” said a high ranking higher education official.

Both statements were spontaneous. Both were more evidence that so many lives are touched by the hope that this research offers.

But now there’s another issue that touches even more people - the proposed 72% increase in electricity rates.

The voters will judge us - both the Governor and the General Assembly, by how we handle this extraordinary price hike. Who did or didn’t vote for deregulation seven years ago and the Governor’s dismantling of the professional staff at the Public Service Commission will be secondary.

And as is almost always the case, the Chief Executive will get the bulk of the credit or the blame for the end product. “Almost,” in case the Governor once again takes a position, refuses to compromise, and ends up outside the room when the bill is ultimately crafted.

---

The eminent domain bill was on its death bed in the Senate, so went the rumor of the day, and the just compensation that the constitution requires when the government condemns private property would not be provided.

But there was a reprieve. The bill was special ordered until Friday, giving its supporters four days to round up the necessary votes - perhaps, to trade support for eminent domain for passage of a Senator’s most important legislation.

Tell one of the swing votes, I advised a friendly lobbyist, to be sure to get just compensation.

Amendments, favorable and unfavorable, known and unknown.

Hundreds of bills will move to the House floor next week. The deadline to crossover to the Senate and avoid delay in the Rules Committee is ten days from now. Most of these bills will be amended, but not all.

Despite our misgivings about the amendments that were accepted to end the filibuster of the stem cell bill, the Speaker told the Sun today that we will move forward with the Senate legislation. Since the commission created by the bill will establish guidelines for awarding research grants, our focus will now shift to having respected scientists appointed to that group.

That’s assuming the Governor doesn’t veto the bill. His spokesman wouldn’t tell the Sun what the governor will do. I wonder if they’ve read the amendment to the budget bill. It provides that if the stem cell bill doesn’t become law, the Governor’s $20 million appropriation for this research is zeroed out.

Pro-life forces attempted to amend the budget bill. They wanted “a report outlining a strategy for reducing the incidence of abortion among women enrolled in Medicaid.”

The language was agreed to in subcommittee but stricken by the full Appropriations Committee yesterday. I met with pro-choice legislators and lobbyists today to decide our strategy for the floor debate on Wednesday.

The Roland N. Patterson Sr. Academy, named after my neighbor’s late husband and adjacent to the community where I live, will be closed two years from now, under a revised plan being submitted to the City School Board. I asked legal counsel if we needed to amend existing law to begin the process of renaming another school and determining the future use of the property.

Two of the bills I sponsored, eminent domain and a task force on green building, received a favorable report with amendments from the Environmental Matters Committee, I learned today. However, the text of the changes won’t be available until Monday.

No one’s eyes glazed over. In fact, some delegates liked my bill too much.

Yesterday was the hearing on House Bill 1414, which would address the low rate of savings among American workers by having the State make retirement plans available to employees of small businesses. Leading with my chin, I asked the committee to defer their questions until today.

The reason: the person who prompted me to introduce the bill, Mark Iwry, could not attend the full committee hearing but would be there for a pension subcommittee work session today. My colleagues were kind to me; I emerged unquestioned and unscathed.

There were several questions for Mark today. My colleagues understood what we are trying to accomplish. But before a favorable motion could be offered, the subcommittee chair recognized another delegate, who moved that my bill be referred to summer study.

I was not surprised. The chair told me yesterday that there were too many complications and IRS issues to try to pass this bill in the remaining 3+ weeks of the session. I told her I understood. The positive response today should mean a lower bill number, earlier hearing, and favorable report next year.

---

There aren’t many second chances in a 90-day session. Today, I got one.

On the House floor this morning, I read the Governor’s supplemental budget. He would spend nearly $10 million to increase work participation rates, in response to the Congress’ recent changes to the welfare reform law.

A second chance for my amendment that failed on Monday. The subcommittee chairman’s initial response was positive.

It got late early for my bill, but then it didn’t.

House Bill 1406, the Voter Rights Protection Act of 2006, would provide for increased public scrutiny of the actions of the Baltimore City Board of Elections. For example, the location of a polling place could not be changed without public notice, at least 90 days before the election.

Imagine the confusion on Election Day, especially among the elderly, if the public school where they had voted for decades was no longer their polling place. This is not a hypothetical problem.

Mount Washington residents recently received notice that instead of voting at the public elementary school, they will now be casting their ballots at a parochial school, where access by both foot and car is more difficult.

House Bill 1368, Election Law - Voter Bill of Rights, will be debated on the House floor on Thursday. I was advised on Tuesday that this bill would be THE vehicle for election law changes in the House. And once THE vehicle journeys to the Senate, it would be too late for my bill to travel that same route. So we need to hitch a ride on HB 1368.

Since my bill affects only Baltimore City, I was told that an endorsement from the City delegation would be helpful. I asked the chair of our delegation to hold a special meeting. We met in the House lounge after today’s floor session.

I explained the bill. The favorable vote was unanimous, but not necessarily because of my oratory. Legislators don’t need to be educated about the effect that tinkering with the electoral process can have upon their well being.

At a reception this evening, I was told that my legislation would not be amended onto the other election law bill. Instead, it will rise or fall on its merits. The Ways and Means Committee will act on it after the public hearing on Friday.

More than one train may leave the station, it now appears.

I have dealt with more transportation issues this session than I have in my previous 23 years combined.

In addition to the bus line changes, a new mass transit route - the Red Line, would run through the Edmondson Avenue corridor, the heart of the southwestern portion of my district.

At a meeting on the Red Line last fall, I got the idea to introduce a bill requiring that a community advisory panel study whether to have light rail or heavy rail, how best to redevelop commercial areas in the adjacent neighborhoods, and how to compensate homeowners whose property is damaged during construction. (If I was still on the Appropriations Committee, I would have tried to accomplish this by adding committee narrative to the budget bill.)

Today was the hearing on that legislation. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Department of Transportation had no objection to the bill. But I was moved by the testimony of Warren Smith, president of the West Hills Improvement Association, about the disruption that construction would cause to his community of African-American homeowners.

“I have a history of working with the Black community,” I said to Delegate Nat Oaks, my 41st District colleague, who was sitting next to me at the witness table. “But every time I meet with my African-American constituents about a problem they’re asking us to solve, I’m reminded that life is different for them than it is for me.”

We clasped hands in recognition.

It’s decision day in the Appropriations subcommittees, and I have two issues that could be dealt with in the operating budget.

Until it was discontinued last fall, the M6 bus line connected the subway system and the Social Security Administration, the largest employer in the Baltimore metropolitan area. It was a vital link to the rest of the city for many residents of my district.

In today’s Baltimore Sun, Mercedes Eugenia, President of the Howard Park Civic Association, described the M6 as a “crown jewel,” saying that it “ran every 15 minutes like clockwork and never, ever ran empty.”

My 41st District colleagues and I introduced legislation requiring that public hearings be held before any more changes are made to bus routes. In response, the Secretary of Transportation has agreed to restore partial service on the M6, but that is unsatisfactory to the community.

Language adopted by the Senate budget committee would likely have the effect of cutting off further discussions about restoration of the service. I asked the House subcommittee chairman to change one word in the Senate provision so that the issue would have to be resolved in the budget conference committee between the two houses.

The change was made. Discussions about the M6 will continue.

My second issue is welfare reform. The Congress recently enacted changes to the work requirements for welfare clients that could result in significant monetary penalties to the State. Staff at the National Conference of State Legislatures informed me of steps that we could take to avoid those losses.

I originally drafted those recommendations as amendments to a bill on welfare reform that I’ve introduced. My legislation doesn’t have to pass, but the budget bill does. So I suggested that my amendment be put on the latter.

In this instance, the subcommittee did not adopt my language because the General Assembly’s budget staff had already proposed language on this topic. However, since that language was not as specific as mine, I’m going to ask the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Welfare Reform to send a letter to the Department of Human Resources embodying the specifics in my amendment.

I don’t need my name on the bill. I want my fingerprints on the policy.

In high school civics, you no doubt learned about the pork barrel - capital projects in a legislator's home district.

In Annapolis, I learned my first year down here, we call them worthy legislative initiatives.

Today, driving down to testify on bond bills for my district, I passed Brooks Robinson. When he took the same exit I did, I wondered if he was coming to town for the same reason. After a little scouting around, I learned he was - the bond bill for the Southern Maryland Stadium, a 4,500-seat facility for a minor league baseball team.

I asked the bill's sponsor if I could testify with Brooks. He kindly agreed.

Brooks offered to let me speak first, but I deferred to him. He began his testimony by saying, "When Sandy hits leadoff and the count goes to 3 and 2, we give him the take sign."

Speaking (and batting) last, my accustomed place in the order, I simply stated, "If a class act like Brooks Robinson is for this stadium, it must be a Hall of Fame proposal."

Giving new meaning to the term "worthy legislative initiative."

Even on the day after, we were still talking about the hearing on victims of child sex abuse.

“I thought it disrespectful to walk out of the room to get something to eat, even though it lasted until 9:40,” I said to one of my colleagues. She readily agreed.

Shortly after the testimony began, I began writing my diary in my head:

"For the second day in a row, we’re enduring a long hearing that will change absolutely no one’s mind. And all of the bills we’re considering will remain in the chairman’s drawer - never to be voted on.

Issues as controversial as gun control and religious institutions’ liability for the sins of their fathers don’t make it to the House floor unless the Governor or the presiding officer uses the political weight of his office to get it there."

But the testimony continued...

“The stories are so hauntingly the same.”

“I can’t remember my kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers because I was being abused then.”

“My abuser wasn’t just hidden. He was enabled.”

“The only part I had figured out: there was no way I was telling anybody.”

“I always feared no one would believe me. Today my family is behind me.”

“I can now pray for my predator. It’s part of my healing.”

For sure, members of the committee will attempt to force a vote on the bill. Still doubtful that will happen this session. But its day will come.

Truth be known, I often write the first draft of my diary entries while I’m sitting in committee hearings.

Today, however, that would be disrespectful.

We’re hearing testimony from victims of child sex abuse. The Judiciary Committee has never been quieter.

I’ll try to write about it tomorrow.

Five hours after the stem cell filibuster started, it ended.

The price: an amendment removing from the bill the priority for funding research that is “unlikely to receive timely or sufficient federal funding.” However, the Stem Cell Research Commission must still establish procedures for the “review, evaluation, ranking, and rating of research proposals for state-funded stem cell research.”

If the Senate bill is neither amended by the House nor vetoed by the Governor, our focus would shift to the appointment of the 15 members of the Commission. They will be chosen by the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, Attorney General, the University System of Maryland, and Johns Hopkins University.

Governor Ehrlich briefly viewed the filibuster from the Senate gallery. In years past, the Governor would set up shop in the Senate President’s Office to negotiate with members the compromise that would end the “extended debate.”

Today, Governor Ehrlich was asked why he preferred his budget proposal to our legislation. "It's by its very nature non-political and non-philosophical," he said, according to the Sun. "The monies will go where the scientists lead those monies."

I assume the Governor’s rhetoric is poll or Rove-driven. Nonetheless, it is nonsensical.

The budget bill is THE policy document of the State government. Its enactment is inherently a political process that reflects the philosophy of the Governor who introduces it and the 188 legislators who review and vote on it.

For all elected officials, the end game is November. But an essential stop along the way is the 90-day legislative session. Yet again, the Governor has directed his effort to politics, at the expense of policy.

I didn’t sit through twenty years of budget hearings for nothing.

Once the Governor announced in January that he would fund stem cell research, I knew that the budget bill would be a crucial document in our deliberations on the issue.

Funding for a new program is frequently made contingent upon the passage of a separate piece of legislation establishing conditions for the use of that money. If the policy bill fails or is vetoed, the funds are deleted from the budget.

Attaching such an amendment to the stem cell appropriation would serve as a powerful deterrent to a gubernatorial veto, I reasoned. Our professional budget staff thought along the same lines. They recommended that this condition be placed upon the Governor’s $20 million. Having this proposal come from our non-partisan staff is preferable to its emanating from a legislator.

Early last week, when I read the committee amendments to House Bill 1, I realized that there was no mention of Fiscal Year 2007. The Governor’s $20 million for stem cell research would be spent in that year.

Can we amend HB 1 so that its provisions apply to that money? No was the response from both our budget chief and Assistant Attorney General. That must be done in the budget bill.

I then asked that language be drafted so that the expenditure of the $20 million would be controlled by the provisions of HB 1 or its Senate counterpart. I shared the amendment with the chair of the Senate Budget and Taxation subcommittee with jurisdiction over the money. Yesterday, the subcommittee adopted the amendment.

Even if you’re no longer on a money committee, it’s good to know the budget.

---

Late this afternoon, I received an e-mail about my alternative teacher training bill (HB 794) from the State Department of Education lobbyist, who was inside the room when the legislation was voted on.

Lobbyist: Are you ok with cap at 100 [participants] instead of 150? I think we just moved your bill favorable from Ways and Means sub-committee.

Me: It's a start. I'll live w it. Thanks...for getting us this far!

Location, location, location.

In real estate and in politics, it’s what matters.

Late last week, the AFL-CIO endorsed Mayor O’Malley’s candidacy for governor - far earlier than is the norm. The press conference, however, was not until today. The location: the unions’ Annapolis office, which just happens to be right across the street from the Governor’s Mansion and the State House.

So there was plenty of rhetoric about having someone who cared about working families living in the house on the other side of the street. And those currently working or living in the Mansion or the State House were definitely within amplified earshot. And the Kelly green O’Malley-Brown banner on the front of the AFL-CIO offices was hard to miss.

Late today, I was invited to join a group of legislators who will be reviewing the eminent domain legislation tomorrow. It’s not often that a bill sponsor is asked to be in the room for such discussions when, like myself in this instance, he’s not a member of the committee where the bill has been assigned.

In light of the unusual circumstances, I’ll pick my spots, making my points only on those aspects of the issue that are most important to me or where I feel I can make the greatest impact.

One location where you don’t want to be is on both sides of the street.

The Right To Life Rally was ending as I walked toward the State House for tonight’s session. Someone handed me a leaflet headlined, “Ask Michael Steele to clarify his stance on embryonic stem cell research!”

What followed was a quote from the Lt. Governor’s February 11th appearance on WBAL Radio: “I support embryonic stem cell research.” Of course, this was said two days after he had compared embryonic stem cell research to Nazi doctors’ experiments.

However, the flyer further notes: “We heard that at the Catholic Men’s Conference in Baltimore on Saturday March 4th, Mr. Steele reiterated his opposition to embryonic stem cell research.”

Apparently, Mr. Steele is attempting to walk back to his original side of the street.

Two articles worth mentioning in today’s Baltimore Sun.

One discusses the impact on Maryland if the Supreme Court were to reverse Roe v. Wade. The story makes no mention of the fact that the Roe principles are already part of Maryland law because of the Question 6 referendum in 1992. So I wrote this letter to the editor.

"The voters of Maryland have preserved a woman's right to choose, even if the Bush Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade. They approved Question 6 by an overwhelming margin, 62-38%, in a 1992 referendum.

Consequently, the state cannot interfere with a woman's decision whether to have a child, if her fetus is not yet viable. However, after that point, abortions are legal in a very limited set of circumstances.

Efforts to make abortions legal, safe, and rare in Maryland are still thwarted today by those who oppose more funding for family planning and access to emergency contraceptives."

On the op-ed page, there’s a column headlined, “Rosenberg swings at some of the biggest issues.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.fraser05mar05,0,7613931.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

Here’s the prepared text I spoke from on the House floor today.

“I have had the privilege of serving in this body for 24 years.

The legislation before us today - the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006, will touch more lives than any other issue I’ve worked on. Each of us knows of a family member, a close friend, or a colleague on this floor whose life could be transformed by this research. Just yesterday, I learned that the mother of a life-long friend must move to an assisted living facility because of her advancing Alzheimer’s.

Today’s vote is about hope. Giving hope to Van Brooks, whose football career has ended but not his battle to recover from his spinal cord injury and walk again. Giving hope to the family of former Governor Harry Hughes, his wife w Parkinson’s and a grandson w juvenile diabetes. Giving hope to John Kellerman, afflicted w Parkinson’s, who wants to dance at his daughter’s wedding.

Today’s vote is also about freedom. The federal government has shackled scientific inquiry into the extraordinary potential of embryonic stem cells. Maryland is a leader in biotechnology because we have invested in our future, but our researchers are free to move to other states that are funding their groundbreaking inquiry - their efforts to rebuild shattered lives.

A vote for House Bill 1 will encourage those scientists to remain here. A vote for House Bill 1 will keep hope alive for Van Brooks, John Kellerman, and so many of our family, friends, and colleagues.”

In light of the result - the bill passed, 85-54 (a veto-proof majority), and the favorable response to my speech from my colleagues on the floor (and one Internet listener), I may not wait another 24 years before writing out my remarks in advance a second time.

The deed is not yet done on stem cells. Still to come are the Senate filibuster, the Governor’s veto (perhaps), and the budget bill with the $20 million appropriation for this research.

Why will tomorrow’s floor debate on HB 1 be different from all other floor debates I’ve participated in?

I’ll be speaking from a prepared text.

I won’t read it word for word. I won’t need to because I know the issue too well. And after 24 years of advising witnesses on my bills NOT to read their testimony, I know that I’ll be more effective maintaining eye contact with my colleagues and not looking down at my text.

But the process of drafting and editing my remarks will make me familiar with what I want to say and how to say it - without memorizing it. No one’s vote will be changed by what I say. But I will be the first one to speak on our side tomorrow, and I want to set the tone for the debate.

At least 83 delegates will vote for the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006 when it passes the House two days from now. Only 71 votes are needed. (If the Governor vetoes the bill, 85 would be required to override.)

I know that because of what happened on the House floor today. Five weakening amendments were offered to the bill; they all failed. 83 was the lowest number of red votes in opposition.

The debate lasted nearly two hours. I spoke only once. It’s the responsibility of the committee chairman to defend the bill, not the sponsor. The less you speak on the floor, the more your colleagues listen.

But sometimes you need to speak. I’ve read in the press that the Governor says he plans to make "a very strong push from [his] office" for approval of his stem cell budget proposal, instead of our legislation.

If there’s been any effort to do so, beyond sound bites or discussions with the Republican caucus, I’m not aware of it.

---

But all politics is still local.

The Roland N. Patterson Sr. Academy is a city school adjacent to the Cold Spring community, where I live. The building is recommended for closing.

If that happens, the City will dispose of the building and the land. The sooner my community association gets involved in that process, the more likely its views will be listened to. I called the president of the association today to begin that process.

“What will the Governor do?” remains an unanswered question on the eve of tomorrow’s floor debate on my embryonic stem cell bill.

The combined vote on House Bill 1 in the two committees last Friday was 33 for and 17 against. No Republican voted for the bill; all 15 voted against it. However, two Republicans voted for the amendments that would allow state funds to be used for research with adult stem cells, as well as embryonic.

If the Ehrlich administration makes this issue a “party call,” that will put pressure on those two GOP members, as well as their like-minded colleagues, to vote for crippling floor amendments tomorrow and against the bill on Friday.

If, on the other hand, the Governor frees them to vote their conscience, that would be a sign that he’s open to compromise on the bill.

Put something on the Internet and it will be read by friend and foe alike. A friend shared with me late this afternoon a blast e-mail from the Maryland Catholic Conference. The message falsely asserts that the Attorney General’s Office wrote that HB 1 does not prohibit the cloning of human beings.

I’ll bring the AG’s letter to the floor tomorrow so that I can read this excerpt out loud: “It is my view that the bills do not permit human cloning.”

----

All is not embryos this week.

I testified on my bill that would limit the tort liability of the five public markets in Baltimore City. The clientele of these facilities is predominantly poor and working class. There are no Giants or Safeways in these neighborhoods.

One delegate asked why the City needed to subsidize these facilities, suggesting that the patrons would be better served by the free market. “If the markets close,” I replied, “there would be a precipitous drop in quality but not in price.”

“What’s your basis for saying that?” he asked.

“Inner city life,” I replied.

First, I read the bill.

I had seen a draft of the amendments to my stem cell research bill last week but not the final version adopted on Friday by two House committees. So the first thing I did when I got to Annapolis today was read the amended bill.

One amendment mandates that the Governor budget at least $25 million for this research annually, starting with Fiscal Year 2008. The budget bill now before us, which contains the Governor’s $20 million for stem cells, is for Fiscal Year 2007.

“How can we make this bill apply to FY ‘07?” I asked higher authorities among our fiscal and legal advisers. Their answer and our strategy will be made known at a later date.

Every member received a memo today from Nancy Fortier, a lobbyist for the Maryland Catholic Conference. She wrote, “The sponsors of HB 1/SB 144 have claimed that the legislation bans human cloning....It does not ban human cloning.”

I knew that was false. But a reply from me would be seen as partisan. So I asked Curt Civin, a leading stem cell researcher at Johns Hopkins, to draft a response. He wrote:

"The memo from Ms. Fortier is simply not scientifically, medically, or legally accurate."

We’ll distribute Dr. Civin’s letter tomorrow.

Much has been written and debated about Baltimore crime statistics in recent days. But two numbers I heard today provide a different and vaulable insight into the City’s well being.

I was attending a neighborhood meeting in Fairmount in West Baltimore. All of the residents were African-American; all were older than I am. The talk turned to who was the first person to break the color barrier and buy a home in the community.

“Seven people recently bought homes here. Most of them are from DC because we’re so close to Interstate 95,” said one resident. “And three of them are white. We’re integrated again.”

“Are the newcomers involved in the community?” I asked. “Very much so” was the reply.

Both the seven and the three are part of a trend. I’ve heard of other City neighborhoods where Washingtonians of all colors are moving.

What will the Governor do?

A compromise on stem cell funding will be voted on by two House committees today, reports this morning’s Washington Post. Not news to me. I’m quoted in the story as saying that there is a “political science” benefit to modifying the bill because of the need to get votes to end a Senate filibuster.
.
The amended House Bill 1 would be similar to the Governor’s plan, according to the article. That is news to me. I’ve seen a draft of the amendments. The Governor’s $20 million appropriation lacks binding language as to how the money would be allocated. The amended bill is very specific.

The legislation did receive a favorable report from the two committees this afternoon. The response from the Governor’s press office: he still doesn’t think a bill is needed, and he “reserves final judgment” on whether he would sign such a bill. Unasked, I assume: Will the Governor urge his Republican Senators not to filibuster it?

If the Governor retains this posture, he will have no further input on the bill, should it pass. By remaining aloof from the legislative process, the Governor will not be a participant in the compromise needed to pass such a controversial measure.

And it won’t be the first time. At the special session on medical malpractice, the Governor would not compromise on the HMO premium tax. Hence, he was not at the conference room table, and the bill contained less reform than it would have if he had been there.

This time around, will the Governor’s need to placate his pro-life base prevent him from shaping the conditions for the research money he has boldly included in his budget?

Before your bill can be considered by the full House of Delegates, it must get a favorable report in committee.

Before your bill can be considered in committee, it must be scheduled for a public hearing.

The bill hearing schedule is updated every Thursday morning. (Late Wednesday afternoon if you have up-to-the-minute access to the General Assembly’s web site.)

Yesterday afternoon, I saw that three of my bills were still unscheduled. On the House floor this morning, I spoke to the relevant subcommittee chair about one of those bills and to my co-sponsor who’s on the committee that will hear another. I e-mailed a committee staff member about a third.

I hope to learn the outcome of my efforts before next Wednesday.

---

Every bill has a hearing - sooner or later. Every bill also has a fiscal note.

The fiscal note estimates the cost of implementing your legislation. The principal source of information is often an affected state agency. And if that agency opposes your bill, it estimates on the high side.

I was reminded of that when my chairman asked me if I knew the fiscal note for my bill was $4.6 million.

House Bill 1474 reads that if a person has reason to believe that a child faces a substantial risk of abuse and neglect because that child is living with a person with a record of child abuse or neglect, that person must notify the police or the local office of the Department of Human Resources (DHR).

DHR, which opposes my bill, estimates that it would have to hire 101 new employees to carry out the law - at a cost of $4.6 million. Change “because” to “and” in the preceding paragraph and the cost of HB 1474 plummets.

Trust me.

My chairman is computer challenged. The only time his laptop is used is by someone else.

Limiting electronic/computer access to certain judicial records was the subject of today’s first bill in committee. “If this bill gets reported to the floor,” I whispered to the chairman, “I guess I’ll have to defend it.” “In that case,” he dead panned, “we’ll have to kill it.”

The shoe was soon on the other foot.

I’ve introduced House Bill 1414. It seeks to address the low rate of savings among American workers by having the State make retirement plans available to employees of small businesses. Very few of these companies offer such benefits.

My involvement in the financial markets is limited to handing over to my CPA the documents he needs to prepare my tax return. So why I have sponsored a bill where the subject is IRA, 401(k), and 408(p)? A childhood friend, Mark Iwry, is an expert in this field. I heard him speak about this legislation last December.

Mark and I met today with the chairman of the subcommittee that will work on our bill and then with State Treasurer Nancy Kopp. Two very productive hours later, my eyes had not glazed over, but I can assure you that Mark did most of the talking.

I returned to my committee in time to hear testimony on a bill dealing with the competency and criminal responsibility of defendants with mental illness. “This bill is a real compromise among many interested parties,” testified a District Court judge. “To cite Mick Jagger, ‘You can’t always get what you want.’”

“And in this case,” I said later to the judge, “you’re providing sympathy for the bedeviled.”

“I don’t wish nobody to happen to this,” said Yung Robinson.

Ms. Robinson, a Korean American, owns a business on Baltimore’s Westside. It was condemned by the City as part of the Hippodrome Theater renovation. She was testifying at a hearing today on the twenty-eight House bills that have been introduced on the subject of eminent domain.

Depriving someone of their liberty - putting that person in jail, is the most awesome power government can exercise. The worst of these criminals are condemned to death.

Eminent domain - condemning the private property of a homeowner or business person, is the most awesome power government can exercise in a civil (or non-criminal) setting.

The vast majority of today’s bills were prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London last June, holding that the government can condemn someone’s property and sell it to a for-profit business for economic development. “Replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton,” wrote Justice O’Connor in dissent.

My involvement pre-dates this controversial case. I’ve successfully sponsored two bills that enhance Baltimore City’s authority to condemn blighted properties. Five years ago, I introduced legislation which would have compensated business owners who suffer a loss of goodwill because the government’s condemnation of their building forced them to move.

That measure died, but I did pass a bill in 2004 which created a task force to study compensation for owners whose property has been condemned. It was amended in the Senate to include the issues raised by the Kelo case, which was then pending.

That task force has recommended increases in compensation and a requirement that existing businesses be given the opportunity to return to an area after it has been condemned and redeveloped. The authority of local government to condemn property for economic development is left untouched.

"It's open season on eminent domain," said one expert in a front-page story in today’s New York Times. Maryland’s response will be more measured than our 49 counterparts, I predict, in some measure because our task force recommended a middle ground.

I began my President’s Day at breakfast with the President of Loyola College. I ended it with a dinner of chicken salad and potato salad with constituents attending Lobby Night for the Maryland Catholic Conference.

No town-gown problems between Loyola and its neighbors. Just a get acquainted discussion with the new President, Father Brian Linnane. Among the topics, the differences between the Catholic and Jesuitical approaches to education and how a religious institution deals with on-campus productions of controversial plays.

Both Fr. Linnane and I had read the recent comments on the subject in the New York Times by Father Ted Hesburgh, the retired president of the University of Notre Dame: "I think the real test of a great university is that you are fair to the opposition and that you get their point of view out there...You don't want mindless Catholics. You want intelligent, successful Catholics."

My constituents and I held the same view on the death penalty, medical coverage for immigrants, and textbook aid for parochial schools. We agreed to disagree on embryonic stem cell research, parental notice for minors seeking an abortion, and emergency contraceptives.

John Houseman would have given the Governor a dime.

In the movie “Paper Chase,” Professor Kingsfield, the crusty law professor played by Houseman, offered one of his students a dime - to call home and tell his mother that he wasn’t going to make it as a lawyer.

Yesterday, a federal appellate court ruled that the Governor did not violate the First Amendment rights of the Baltimore Sun when he ordered that “no one in the Executive Department or Agencies is to speak with” two Sun journalists - a reporter and a columnist.

In a written statement, the Governor declared that the decision “goes to the heart of this issue - the responsibility of every member of the press to report in a fair and objective manner, and the right to hold accountable those journalists who fail to adhere to these basic tenets of journalistic integrity.”

Professor Kingsfield would dissent.

The court based its decision on its conclusion that the Sun and its two writers “have not been chilled to any substantial degree in their reporting” by the Governor’s edict. The court did refer to “the widespread practice of public officials declining to speak to reporters whom they view as untrustworthy because the reporters have violated a promise of confidentiality or otherwise distorted their comments.” However, it did not discuss the accuracy or objectivity of any of the articles or columns that prompted the Governor’s ire.

The Governor’s rhetoric was worthy of right-wing radio but not an attorney who is the state’s Chief Executive.

Full disclosure: I had my Professor Kingsfield moment in law school. I flunked Civil Procedure II. The professor, Maurice Rosenberg (no relation obviously), no doubt searching his pockets for a dime so that I could call home, asked me how I had done in my other first-year classes. “In Professor Telford Taylor’s Constitutional Law class,” I replied, “I got an A.”

Vice President Cheney survived the friendly fire of a Fox News Channel interview today.

I also did my time in the vast right-wing media apparatus - two hours tonight on Talk Radio 680 WCBM.

It wasn’t fair and balanced. Baltimore Sun bashing, Mayor O’Malley bashing, immigrant bashing.

But I was able to make this point: The Republicans’ concerted effort to cry “Fraud” in response to Democratic efforts to make it easier to vote casts doubt on the legitimacy of the election itself. And that is very dangerous for our democracy.

After two hours in the belly of the beast, where facts were often an accident, why did I remember this quote from Alvy Singer, Woody Allen’s character in Annie Hall?

“Excuse me. I’m due back on the planet Earth.”

Welfare reform used to be very controversial.

Ronald Reagan’s welfare queen. Bill Clinton’s vetoes of two bills sent him by the Gingrich Congress before he signed the third version in his re-election year.

Maryland has had its share of battles. Twelve years ago, we debated the family cap. Should we deny additional monthly benefits to a mother who had another child out of wedlock? Abortion politics entered the fray. If there was a cap, should Medicaid pay for the abortions these women might choose to have?

“The Speaker wishes that someone would rid him of this meddlesome priest,” a reporter said to me, referencing Thomas a Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury and rival of King Henry II. “But like Banquo’s ghost in Macbeth,” I replied, “it will reappear at the conference committee table.”

Historical and literary allusions notwithstanding, we did not adopt a family cap. Several years later, however, we did require screening for substance abuse. My house was picketed in protest.

Nonetheless, we worked with health professionals to create a program based on their recommendations: no mandatory testing but screening designed to prompt people to recognize they had an addiction and they wanted to treat it. We also made additional funds available for treatment.

This summer, I learned that welfare mothers suffer disproportionately from depression and domestic violence. So I’m sponsoring House Bill 901, which would apply our screening model for substance abuse to these problems.

I met today with a bill drafter to discuss amendments to HB 901, prompted by the changes in work requirements for welfare clients that were recently adopted by the Congress. This is the only welfare reform legislation that’s been introduced this session.

Unwed welfare mothers are no longer a wedge issue. They’ve been replaced by gays and lesbians who seek to wed.

“My son left the country because he didn’t feel safe here and now lives in Singapore with his partner,” related one of my constitutents.

“Our child moved to San Francisco,” another couple told me.

“I wish my son was as close as San Francisco,” replied the first mother.

Both sons are gay.

“How can we be effective with other legislators?” asked both parents. “Do what I tell everyone to do - whether they’re testifying on one of my bills or students in my Legislation class,” I stated. “Personalize it. In your case, that will be very effective.”

My next group of citizen-lobbyists was from Friends School, also here to speak to me about gay marriage. Their teacher suggested we begin the discussion like a Quaker meeting, with a moment of silence. Thirty long seconds later, when no one had spoken, I suggested we switch to a Socratic dialogue and broke the ice with a question.

The Republicans want the U.S. Senate election to be about biography.

The Democrats want it to be about ideology.

Witness the response to Lt. Governor Steele’s remarks yesterday comparing embryonic stem cell research to the ghoulish experiments performed by Nazi doctors.

Governor Ehrlich praised his running mate for his next-day apology and called him "a straight-up guy....Mike is very strong, and he is running strong in the polls, and there is a great deal of fear associated with this campaign because of his polling numbers and his excellent fundraising and his life story,"

Congressman Cardin, the leading candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination, held a press conference in Annapolis today to criticize the Lt. Governor’s remarks. "Michael Steele opposes this life-saving research," Cardin declared. "This is an appropriate issue for us to debate. ... Michael Steele is wrong on stem cell research, and he's wrong on other issues."

I also spoke at that event. I don’t often write my remarks in advance, but in this instance, I did. They follow:

At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi doctors, the American prosecutor, Brigadier General Telford Taylor, declared in his opening statement:

"For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals."

The scientists who seek to use embryonic stem cells to find cures for juvenile diabetes and Lou Gehrig’s disease have the highest regard for human life. They are not Nazis. Their life’s work is to heal the sick.

For Lt. Governor Steele to compare their efforts to the Nazis is offensive to those researchers, their patients, and the memory of those tortured and exterminated in the Holocaust.

When Mr. Steele answered a question about embryonic stem cell research yesterday, he said that "the governor and I have pretty squarely laid out where we are on that."

The people of Maryland deserve an apology from Lt. Governor Steele and an explanation from Governor Ehrlich.

Everyday at the ballpark, goes a baseball adage, you’ll see something you never saw before. At this year’s Fantasy Camp, it was me on the mound, instead of behind the plate.

Since every team makes the playoffs, every manager saves his best pitchers for the “post-season.” Our skipper, Bob “Rocky” Johnson, told me right after breakfast on Thursday that I was starting our game that morning. After I regained my composure, I dutifully replied, “In Annapolis, I’m used to doing what the leadership tells me to do.”

I’d go an inning, maybe two, I thought, my Earned Run Average saved by the Camp rule limiting teams to six runs an inning. I gave up three runs (two earned) in the first inning - too many walks and not enough infield plays made.

Then a goose egg (a zero on the scoreboard), an unearned run, and another goose egg. Two earned runs in 4 innings - the Fantasy Camp equivalent of a quality start (a stat that retired big league pitchers despise), but a loss.

And there was praise from a fellow pitcher for my catching. The umpire called a strike on a pitch that “may” have been a few inches off the inside corner, but my glove never moved. “I wish my catcher framed pitches like you do,” said the pitcher/batter.

In the days before the designated hitter, pitchers loved to talk about their hitting. I will, of necessity, be brief. My one hit in eight at bats was a bloop into right field, but I did walk twice, giving me a respectable .300 on-base percentage.

I was denied my second hit when I hit a line drive right down the first baseline. Since there was a man on base, the first baseman, Ross Grimsley, was playing near the line and caught it. The pitcher was Bill Swaggerty. Both are former major leaguers.

The best story from this year’s Camp was about someone who played here less than a year, Reggie Jackson, and a player who played infrequently when he was here, Tim Nordbrook.

Soon after Jackson joined the club, he walked to the back of the team bus and saw Nordbrook sitting with Jim Palmer. “What do you do on this team?” Reggie asked the back-up shortstop.

Late one game, Nordbrook replaced Mark Belanger, after he had been lifted for a pinch hitter. With runners on base, the ball “found” Nordbrook, who started a spectacular double play. His teammates congratulated him when he returned to the dugout, including Earl Weaver, who then hollered at Jackson, “That’s what he does on this team.”

“I’m an agnostic.”

One of The Great Assigners had just told me that my bill to create a Task Force on Green Building would be assigned to the Environmental Matters Committee. I needed to know which committee would hear the bill, so that I could ask the chairwoman which of her members would be an effective co-sponsor.

5:00 this afternoon is the deadline to submit your bill and be guaranteed a full hearing. Time is of the essence.

“Is that committee OK w you?” The Great Assigner asked.

Hence, my reply.

Another bill that I submitted this morning would require that otherwise confidential records concerning child abuse or neglect be disclosed if a child has died or suffered a severe physical injury.

This afternoon, I peeked at the General Assembly web site during our bill hearings. I had expected this legislation would be referred to my committee, but it was not.

I spoke to our staff, who spoke to the other committee’s staff. The bill will be reassigned to us.

At 4:30, I made my final trek to the Chief Clerk's Office, six bills in hand. A Republican colleague said that a lot of people had held on to their bills until the last minute.

"At least I had an excuse," I replied. "Last week, I was away at Fantasy Camp."

Why do we need this bill?

That’s the question every bill sponsor must answer. And the burden of proof is most definitely the sponsor’s - with one exception.

The budget bill must pass. All else is statutory commentary.

However, an appropriation in the budget can be made contingent upon the passage of another bill specifying how that money is to be used. That’s what our non-partisan budget analysts recommended today for the Governor’s $20 million Stem Cell Research Fund.

The written testimony from scientists and biotechnology entrepreneurs at today’s budget hearing raised a host of questions as to how those research grants should be awarded. For example, what are the guidelines and priorities for funding? Who will make those decisions? Who will be eligible to receive these public dollars?

The answers to those questions must be found in legally binding language. Not in a letter from a gubernatorial appointee that could become inoperative after the legislature adjourns in April. That’s why we introduced House Bill 1, the Maryland Stem Cell Research Act of 2006. Thus far, our appeals to the Governor to come reason with us have fallen upon deaf ears.

If the budget committees adopt the language making the Governor’s appropriation contingent upon the passage of our bill, that should change.

The subject of today’s bill hearing was sexual predators. But the elephant in the room (and the donkey too) was the gubernatorial election.

House Bills 4, 181, and 304 would extend parole supervision, provide for lifetime registration, and/or initiate electronic tracking of sexual offenders. The respective sponsors were Speaker Busch and Attorney General Curran, Mayor O’Malley, and Governor Ehrlich. (County Executive Duncan, I learned later, was one floor above, testifying on environmental legislation.)

The Mayor declared, “We need the state not to laugh at local jurisdictions.” In response, a Republican delegate asserted that the City has the highest non-compliance rate for tracking offenders living in its jurisdiction.

Fiscal notes, which estimate the cost of implementing legislation, are primarily based on projections provided by the affected Cabinet department. For the Speaker’s bill, the impact was $14.7 million; the Mayor’s totaled $24.2 million; and “not readily quantifiable” was the conclusion for the Governor’s.

That’s not fuzzy math. In this instance, the Ehrlich Administration is exercising its power to influence the legislative process - by estimating high for bills it doesn’t like and low balling legislation it supports. (I was once the victim of the former in the Glendenning Administration.)

In the end, however, a majority of my committee will make its best policy judgment as to how we should restrain and/or monitor sexual offenders.

While away at Oriole Fantasy Camp I could keep up with my email, read about the rancorous debate about gay marriage, and be inspired by Taylor Branch’s account of LBJ’s Voting Rights Act speech before a joint session of Congress. (“I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy,” the President began his address.)

But you can’t virtually introduce a bill. You must physically hand it in at the Clerk’s Office. With Thursday’s deadline to avoid the purgatory of the Rules Committee, ten of my bills introduced, and a list of 25 outstanding (as in “still out there”) bill requests, our priority this week, I told my staffers, is to prepare legislation for introduction.

For my bill designed to attract liberal arts college graduates into public school teaching, I sought co-sponsors from the members of the subcommittee that will consider it. All but one of them signed on.

Legislation to establish procedures to enhance the reliability of eyewitness identification in criminal cases had sufficient co-sponsors, thanks to the efforts of the Public Defender. Another bill, requested by a neighborhood association in my district, required only the signatures of my two Forty First District colleagues.

A veteran staffer, working on changes I wanted to make to the first draft of a bill, helped me avoid a problem. “This becomes a bill [with the proposed changes] that is less than it seems (as opposed to the ‘classic snake’, which is more than it seems).”

We don’t want it on the ballot nor should it be.

I’m speaking, of course, of gay marriage.

The Conventional Wisdom is that an amendment prohibiting gay marriage would boost the turnout among conservative voters, to the benefit of Republican candidates. So all 44 GOP delegates are believed to have signed a petition to bring such an amendment to the House floor, circumventing the normal committee process. (The Judiciary Committee is likely to vote on the issue later this week.).

There is also unanimity in the Democratic caucus - to keep the amendment off the House floor and the November ballot. While only one Republican might break ranks and vote against the amendment itself, a fair number of Democrats would vote for it. However, most of them would so only if Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, were to rule that a ban on gay marriages violates the state constitution.

Striking down a statute as unconstitutional is an awesome exercise of judicial power. Consequently, it’s not frivolously done. “The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it,” wrote Justice Brandeis.

Amending the constitution is also an awesome exercise of power. Consequently, the legislature and then the electorate should not impose their will in this way, altering our fundamental document of governance, unless absolutely necessary.

In addition, the divisive nature of the marriage issue would color the public debate this November, to the detriment of consideration of other issues, which have a greater impact on the well being of the electorate.

When we talk among ourselves, we call it the Sandra Day O’Connor Corrective Act.

What Supreme Court cases interpreting the federal civil rights laws were decided by a 5-4 vote, with Justice O’Connor in the majority? That’s the question I asked after the Justice sent her resignation letter to President Bush this summer.

Put another way, what protections could be undone by a more conservative court? What could we do legislatively to align Maryland’s civil rights laws with the Court’s current and more expansive reading of the federal statutes?

The result is officially called the Civil Rights Preservation Act of 2006. I discussed the bill draft today with three lawyers who practice in this field.

They briefed me on how the bill would benefit someone denied a job or access to a public accommodation. “We need sympathetic, articulate and diverse witnesses at the bill hearing who would be harmed if this legislation is not enacted,” I said.

“What are the chances for this bill?” one of them asked.

“If we can make this an important civil rights bill in an election year,” I replied, “Good.”

The Pro-Growth Progressive, the book reviewed in Sunday’s New York Times, arrived yesterday. Today, I read the chapter entitled “Seeing At-Risk Minority Males as Future Fathers and Workers.” Then I called the bill drafter.

The author praises the Second Chance Act of 2004, introduced in the Congress by two Democrats and two Republicans. It would offer comprehensive support to ex-offenders - housing, employment services, mental health treatment, and counseling.

At this late hour, I told the drafter, you can copy the language from this bill and not have to reinvent the wheel. Plus, make it a pilot program, with a cap on the cost of $250,000 (as I had done with the Maryland Alternative Teaching Opportunity Program to stay within the unwritten budgetary limit).

And draft it to the Public Safety Article so that the bill is referred to the Judiciary Committee, where I’m a member. She understood.

I had been stuck in the Joint Hearing Room all afternoon. Not entirely cut off from the outside world - thanks to my laptop, but totally unaware of what was going on across the street.

I had a 3:30 appointment with leading officials of a technology investment company. Assuming that I already knew, they told me that Senator Hollinger’s committee had voted favorably on our bill.

“What was the vote?” I asked. “6-4,” they replied.

Some rumors - true or otherwise, spread like wildfire in Annapolis. Other things may happen and, to paraphrase Yogi, you don’t hear about it until someone tells you.

----

The Gazette, a Montgomery County newspaper, reported today the results of its poll of 30 Annapolis insiders, who were asked to rank the most effective and ineffective legislators. Of the 141 House members, I was ranked 12th most effective - with this comment:

‘‘Gets the job done all the time.”

Even Brooks Robinson misplayed a few, I wrote a friend. Nonetheless, you’ll be seeing that comment again this summer - on my campaign literature.

When your megaphone’s not as big as the Governor’s, you try harder.

At last year’s hearing on my stem cell legislation, the Governor’s budget secretary submitted a written statement of opposition. Even though no Cabinet Secretary who likes his or her job takes a position on a major piece of legislation without the approval of the Governor, his press office spun the Secretary’s opposition as not indicative of the Governor’s position. For the most part, the media let him get away with it.

Consequently, at yesterday’s stem cell hearing, an aide to Speaker Busch and I gave to the press copies of the letter submitted by the Budget Secretary this time around. (“We believe that HB 1 is unnecessary.”) The Baltimore Sun reporter got it and understood its significance.

It’s mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the story, followed by a response from the Speaker that the letter illustrates the Governor’s reluctance “to deal in embryonic stem cell research from the outset.”

The Washington Post, on the other hand, was treated to an exclusive interview with the Governor. The 2nd paragraph of its story read, “But it was a voice legislators did not hear, neither yesterday nor a year ago, that could alter this year’s debate - that of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.”

The article concluded with this quote from the Governor: “I would discourage both sides from impacting this thoughtful approach that we’ve developed.” That “thoughtful approach” is a $20 million appropriation with no indication as to how it will be awarded.

Needless to say, there was no reference to the letter from the Budget Secretary.

In his State of the State address today, the Governor discussed his funding for stem cell research, but the word “embryo” never passed his lips. I pointed this out afterwards to a reporter, who responded that our bill didn’t use the word either. When I got back to my office, I re-read our bill and emailed him three references to “embryo” in the legislation.

A great deal was said during the 4 ½ hour hearing on my embryonic stem cell research bill today.

“We are not chasing mirages. We are pursuing dreams. Therapies delayed are therapies denied,” declared Johns Hopkins researcher John Gearhart.

“Patients’ hope should be based on scientific data, not exaggerated claims. The onus is on embryonic stem cell researchers,” responded Catholic Conference lobbyist Nancy Fortier.

However, words that were written, not spoken, may also affect the future course of this legislation.

“We hope that you will support the Governor’s [$20 million] appropriation to the Stem Cell Research Fund. Accordingly, we believe that HB 1 is unnecessary,” wrote the Governor’s Budget Secretary Cecilia Januszkiewicz.

So the response to my conversations this week with executive branch officials, asking that the Governor work with the legislature in establishing criteria for spending this money, is “No.”

Perhaps, the Governor made a commitment to Republican legislators that they won’t have to vote on whether the State should fund embryonic stem cell research. And if my bill is not reported to the House floor and no amendment is offered to his budget bill specifying how that $20 million is to be spent, they won’t have to cast such a vote.

No one will know just how that money is going to be spent. That is unacceptable, not just to Democratic legislators but to the researchers who want to know if their proposals will be evaluated on the basis of scientific criteria.

For the second time in two days, I was meeting in my office with Executive Branch officials, discussing embryonic stem cell research.

“The Governor’s $20 million appropriation for this research is a great step forward,” I said, “but there needs to be legally binding language as to how this money will be spent. That’s what we did with the money we received from the settlement of the state’s lawsuit with the cigarette industry, and that’s what we need to do here as well. The legislature, the executive, and the scientific and academic communities need to reach a consensus.”

My secretary interrupted. “Cal Ripken’s out in the hallway.”

I hesitated. I didn’t want to go out there and not have him remember my Gold Glove performance at the inaugural Ripken Baseball Minor League Experience.

I needn’t have worried.

“You caught every inning in four games,” said Cal. “But one,” I interjected, ever the statistician. (I also tagged out three runners at the plate but didn’t mention that.) Cal also recalled pitching to me in the “All-Star” game. “We were in sync on your pitch selection,” he said.

“How fast were you throwing?” somebody asked. “About 60,” Cal replied, “but in high school I threw 90.”

“After the Orioles drafted me, they had to decide where to play me,” Cal related. “Earl wanted me to be an infielder. The general manager and the head of the farm system wanted me to pitch.

“My father, ever the organizational diplomat, said that if I started as an infielder but didn’t hit, they could make me a pitcher. But they couldn’t move me from pitcher to infielder [because Cal would have missed too many minor-league at bats].

“I said I’d prefer to be an infielder because you play every day.”

You don’t want to be known as a legislator who introduces “60 Minutes” bills. Flashy issue on Sunday night becomes bill drafting request on Monday morning.

I didn’t watch “60 Minutes” last night. The NFC title game was not yet a blowout. But before I settled in for seven quarters of football, I did read the Sunday New York Times, which prompted the following this morning:


"I write to request that legislation be drafted linking economic aid for single men to responsible fatherhood, based on Gene Sperling's proposal to do so in his new book, The Pro-Growth Progressive. The book was reviewed in yesterday's NYTimes, and I ordered it from amazon.com this morning."


Encouraging responsible behavior among women - through job training and substance abuse treatment, has been at the heart of Maryland’s welfare reform, which has reduced the rolls by 2/3.

For several years, I’ve tried to expand those efforts to men. The Building Strong Families Act of 2005 is one example. (As I wrote last week, the bill died because a gay marriage amendment would have been offered on the floor.)

Intrigued by the brief reference to responsible behavior in the review, I bought the book by a Clinton economics adviser and made the bill request. But why the reference to amazon.com?

Tomorrow is the deadline to make a bill request and be guaranteed that your bill will be drafted in time to avoid referral to (and delay in) the Rules Committee. So I wanted the drafter to know I was doing my best to find out more about this concept. (But not by overnight shipping.)

You’ll be shocked, shocked to learn that politics is involved in our override of 13 of the Governor’s vetoes. As well as policy and the Ehrlich style of governance.

Unlike the last two years, we made little effort to pare down the list of bills where the Democratic majority flexed its 85-vote muscle (the 3/5ths necessary to override a veto). But there was no willing partner in the Executive Branch to resolve the disputed issues.

The four voting bills are a representative example. When the Governor vetoed this legislation in late May, he wrote that he would appoint a study group in light of Maryland’s “national reputation as a state with a rich history of voter fraud.”

It was not until five months later, on Halloween (I don’t make this stuff up!) that the Governor created his commission. Contrary to custom, he did not consult the legislature’s two presiding officers on the membership of the group.

As one of the sponsors of the Voters Rights Protection Act, I was extended the courtesy of testifying before the commission. Its report was not issued until the day before the session started. During the floor debate this past week, nary a word was spoken about its recommendations.

For instance, the commission proposes that an individual be allowed to cast a provisional ballot only in the county where he or she is registered. That’s an idea worth considering, but there’s no sign that a bill will be introduced.

The Commission also writes that “The Governor believes that the legislature should adopt a voter identification system that emulates the best practices from other states.” Does the Governor think that no one should vote without a state-issued ID? If he does, he should introduce a bill.

A governor who wanted to meet the legislature half way, instead of dueling at a distance by sound bites, would have acted differently - when these bills were before the legislature last winter, when he appointed the commission to study them, and when the commission made its recommendations this month.

Reading the newspaper on the House floor can be very relevant to the issue we’re debating. Not always, but it was this morning.

As we were debating a rule change today, I read a New York Times article on eminent domain that a Baltimore City official had alerted me to.

For many politicians, the story quoted an economic development official, defending eminent domain was as perilous as endorsing gay marriage. “This issue is the third rail right now. You step on it, you die.”

Today’s rule change will prevent a delegate from offering a floor amendment that would add a constitutional amendment to a bill that was not already a constitutional amendment. Put another way, if a bill creates or amends a law that was passed by the legislature and does not require the voters’ approval, you can’t try to link it to a provision that does.

Last year, if a bill affecting marriage was being debated on the House floor, a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage was certain to be offered. One of my bills, the Building Strong Families Act of 2005, fell victim to this ploy; it died in committee - to avoid a floor fight.

This summer, the Supreme Court ruled that governments can condemn private property for economic development by for-profit businesses. Our Republican caucus quickly responded by announcing it would offer a constitutional amendment banning eminent domain for this reason.

No doubt the same floor amendment strategy would be pursued. A constitutional amendment would be offered to any bill dealing with eminent domain.

How are these two issues wedded together? A constitutional amendment appears on the November ballot. Same-sex marriage prohibitions boosted the turnout among conservative voters in several red states in the Bush-Kerry election. A constitutional amendment on either marriage or eminent domain is intended to have the same effect on voters in Maryland this fall.

There are several apolitical reasons why a bill should not amend both the Maryland code of laws and the Maryland constitution. For instance, the Governor can veto the former but not the latter. Could he veto this hybrid? Plus, there are other ways for a constitutional amendment to be put before the full house.

Once again, good policy is good politics.

Yesterday’s veto override got little attention in today’s newspapers. So Lisa Gladden and I sent a letter to the editor of several papers. Whether or not they publish it, I can.


Dear Editors:

The Voters Rights Protection Act enhances citizens’ access to the voting booth by preveting voter intimidation and suppression. By overriding Governor Ehrlich’s veto, the General Assembly takes another step forward on the path trod 41 years ago by those who marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge near Selma, Alabama.

We were the lead sponsors of this legislation. It adopts language from the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 that prohibits the use of force, threat, menace, intimidation, bribery, deception, or reward to influence a voter's decision whether to go to the polls. Conduct that results in or has the intent to result in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or disability is prohibited as well.

Such ugly acts are not historic relics of the Deep South. Four years ago, leaflets urging people to vote - but on the day after the election, were distributed in minority neighborhoods in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County. In adition, these flyers wrongly implied that you couldn’t vote if you owed child support or parking tickets. Our bill makes this deception a crime.

Provisional ballots are one of the reforms passed by the Congress after the Florida election debacle in 2000. If your name is not on the voters’ list at the precinct where you go to vote, you cast a provisional ballot. It’s counted after the polls close - only if you’re registered at another precinct.

But it counts only for federal offices, not state and local ones. Our bill changes that. Your vote counts for all offices for which you voted that were on the ballot in the precinct where you’re registered.

Republicans across the country are seeking to depress turnout among minorities by making it more difficult to vote, writes John B. Judis in The New Republic. They have supported legislation in seven states, such as Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona, that requires voters to present state-issued photo IDs at the polls.

People who do not have a driver’s license must get an ID card from the state in order to vote. As we learned after Hurricane Katrina, many low-income blacks and Hispanics do not have driver’s licenses. One federal judge compared this requirement to a poll tax.

In the wake of the Bloody Sunday police beatings of civil rights demonstrators on the Edmund Pettis bridge, President Lyndon Johnson said to a joint session of Congress, "The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country, in large measure, is the history of the expansion of that right to all of our people." The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted five months later.

Forty years later, systematic denial of the franchise has ended, but ingenious efforts to thwart this fundamental right, such as those in Florida in 2000 and Maryland in 2002, still mar our electoral process.

With the passage of the Voters’ Rights Protection Act of 2005, all Marylanders can be confident that their fundamental right to vote shall not be abridged.

Senator Lisa Gladden and Delegate Samuel I. “Sandy” Rosenberg

Until today, there were only six bills that I list on my bio. Now, there are seven.

“The Voters Rights Protection Act of 2005 is now the law of Maryland.”

We had just overriden the Governor’s veto of the bill, and I placed a call to Senator Lisa Gladden. Both of us had crossfiled/sponsored the legislation. That’s how I began our conversation.

The new law combats voter suppression by adopting language from the federal Voting Rights Act that prohibits the use of force, threat, menace, intimidation, bribery, deception, or reward to influence a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls. Conduct that results or has the intent to result in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or disability is prohibited as well.

Nonetheless, the Governor and the Republican members of the House cried “Fraud!” The lone provision of the bill they cited dealt with provisional ballots, one of the election reforms passed by the Congress after the Florida election debacle in 2000.

If your name is not on the voter’s list at the precinct where you go to vote, you cast a provisional ballot. It’s counted after the polls close - only if you’re registered at another precinct. But it counts only for federal offices, not state and local ones.

Our bill changes that. Your vote counts for all offices for which you voted that were on the ballot in the precinct where you’re registered.

Even though we’ve conducted several elections with provisional ballots since 2000, the Republicans raised the specter of rampant voter fraud - people traveling across the state on Election Day to vote countless times.

After speaking with Lisa Gladden, I went to the rostrum to thank the Speaker. “Five minutes into our first discussion of this bill, you understood that it was sound on policy grounds and good politics as well.” Expanding access to our most fundamental right as citizens is sound policy, and Republican opposition exposes their strategy to dampen minority turnout.

There will be no bill signing. No souvenir pens and photos with the Governor. Instead, we can celebrate the bill’s passage on Election Day.

I should have known but didn't:

Tomorrow, the Governor will introduce his budget. And for the fourth time in four years, the General Assembly will cut his budget. Man bites dog; Democrats take bite out of Republican's spending proposals.

How do I know what will happen this year when I didn’t remember that we had done so each of the last three years? The Governor's budget exceeds the limit on spending growth adopted by the Spending Affordability Committee, a group of legislators and private individuals.

That guideline is followed by the legislature and noticed by Wall Street. It's one of the major reasonsd why Maryland has the highest possible bond rating - AAA.

And if I didn’t know of the Governor’s history of liberal spending until reminded of it today, the average voter doesn’t either.

---

Don't tell my mother, but I made a cell phone call during the Baltimore City delegation dinner tonight.

But I can’t discuss the nature of the call until I know if I’ve brought home the bacon.

I rose to explain my vote on the Walmart bill. But the Speaker had his eyes on the vote tally, not the House floor. He knew there were 88 green votes (three more than needed) because of an electronic tally available only to him on the rostrum. So there was no need for me to speak and give the Democratic whips the time to round up the votes needed to override the Governor’s veto.

This is what I was going to say:

Several delegates have mentioned Franklin Roosevelt tonight - during the debate on Walmart, as well as the minimum wage legislation. FDR signed two minimum wage bills - the first as Governor of New York, the second as President. New York established a minimum wage because the federal government had failed to do so.

Once again, Washington has shirked its responsibility. Our bill would raise the minimum wage in Maryland from $5.15 per hour to $6.15 per hour. Other states have already done so. Since the Republican controlled Congress has blocked efforts to raise this standard, we must act at the state level to help assure a living wage for working men and women.

Two summers ago, I read op-ed articles about meetings among business, labor and other officials to try to address both the spiraling costs of employer-provided health care and coverage for the uninsured. I was encouraged that such a coalition could move the political discussion in new ways. Regrettably, nothing has come of those conversations.

As taxpayers, we are paying the costs of employers, such as Walmart, who do not provide health care coverage for their employees. We foot the bill for hospital visits by the uninsured and for those who are enrolled in Medicaid. Until there is action on this issue at the federal level, it is the states who must serve, in Justice Brandeis' phrase, as the laboratories of democracy.


I saw the Speaker at a reception later tonight. We laughed about his “failure” to see me rise to speak.

“Save it for stem cells,” he said.

Once again, I began the session the way I did 23 years ago - cholesterol-loading at Chick and Ruth’s Deli. An omelette and home fries - but no bread, in deference to my South Beach diet.

Then I began what I hope will become an Opening Day tradition. I visited the Uriah P. Levy Jewish Chapel at the Naval Academy, just opened this September. There’s a marker that says “Samuel I. Rosenberg - Hon. Samuel I. Rosenberg.”

My family provided for that tribute to my paternal grandfather and me. (On the other side of my family tree, this will be the last year there’s a Hecht Co. sign in Annapolis - or anywhere else.)

The opening session itself was ceremonial. Veto overrides and a rule change were special ordered (postponed) until tomorrow.

My lone substantive meeting of the day was prompted by a front-page story in the New York Times this fall: “Options Open, Top Graduates Line Up To Teach to the Poor.” Many college seniors are interested in teaching - many more than are accepted into programs like Teach for America.

For example, 12% of this year’s graduates from both Yale and Spelman College, a historically black institution, applied to TFA. Less than 13% of all applicants were accepted.

There must be plenty of qualified applicats who could teach in Maryland schools, I said to myself. “Should we pursue them?” I asked Nancy Grasmick, State Superintendent of Schools, when she was the guest Socratic dialoguer at my Legislation class at Maryland Law School a few weeks later. Yes, she replied.

Today, I met with two members of her staff to discuss the bill draft for the Maryland Alternative Teaching Opportunity Program. To attract people to Teach For America and other innovative teacher preparation programs, the state would match local school boards’ payments for a summer internship program to 150 prospective teachers.

Why only 150? The program would cost less than $250,000, the unwritten limit on the fiscal note for a bill. Nonetheless, it’s a start. Those 150 teachers could touch the lives of thousands of students.

That’s why I love my job. I can take an idea and try to make it public policy.

Late this morning, all 188 members of the legislature received an email from the Governor’s Office. It invited us to his press conference tomorrow regarding the announcement of his “Science and Technology Initiatives.”

The events is in Baltimore at 10:45 a.m. The session begins at noon. Tough to do both without a State Police escort.

At 2:00 this afternoon, we held our press conference at Lawyer’s Mall. In the shadow of the statue of Thurgood Marshall, I said: “Marshall knew when people were playing games with his clients - denying them equal justice under law. Governor, stop playing games with stem cells. Fund the research. Show us the money!”

As our event ended, word circulated that the Governor’s office was hastily arranging a 5:30 press briefing. There, his staff announced that he would be amending his budget to provide $20 million for stem cell research. Proposals using adult or embryonic stem cells would be eligible.

When the press called, I said: “It would be irresponsible for the legislature not to adopt criteria for how this money should be spent. There are serious ethical and scientific concerns here. And we would do that with a Democratic governor. I can recite chapter and verse of instances when we’ve done so.”

This evening, I received an e-mail from one of the scientists who has been very involved in our effort. “I'll be in NYC tomorrow, but back late tomorrow nite. By that time, I hope we can all look over all the details.” I replied: “It is a great victory and step forward but now we have to legislate the details.”

And we haven’t even begun the session yet...

The Sun article about today's events is at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.stem11jan11,1,2420438.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

“Stem cell politics on tap” read the front page headline in today’s Sun.


Late last week, a friend in the Executive Branch leaked to me that Governor Ehrlich would be holding a press conference this Wednesday to announce that he would be funding the construction of a new building for stem cell research.


Those labs will be without top-flight scientists if the State doesn’t fund embryonic stem cell research. To make that point - and to emphasize that the Governor is not providing state dollars for this research, we’re holding our press conference tomorrow - the day before the Governor’s. And we leaked that fact to a Sun reporter.


“Parking law is focus of bill” read the headline on the lede story in the Maryland section of today’s Sun. We do stem cells in Annapolis, I said to myself. At the City Council, they do parking.


But then I was off to a breakfast meeting my State Senator, Lisa Gladden, and I were having with neighborhood community leaders. Their concerns were about housing code violations and an unwanted development project. We said we’d explore how we could help by introducing legislation in Annapolis.

And I was reminded of what then Delegate Torrey Brown told me 23 years ago, just before I was sworn in for the first time. “The work you do for your constituents back home,” he said, “is just as important as the policy decisions you make in Annapolis.”

 Voting rights and embryonic stem cell research are at the top of my agenda for the 2006 Session of the General Assembly. I write to share my views and gain your thoughts on these and other issues.

Voting is our most fundamental right as citizens in a democracy. The Voters Rights Protections Act of 2005, which Senator Lisa Gladden and I introduced, passed the General Assembly by overwhelming margins but was vetoed by Governor Robert Ehrlich.

Eligible voters who lack a particular form of ID should not be turned away if their identity is ascertainable. The bill would allow voters to establish their identity by presenting any one of a wide variety of documents, which is already the case under federal law.

Our legislation also combats voter suppression by adopting language from the 1965 Voting Rights Act that prohibits the use of force, threat, menace, intimidation, bribery, deception, or reward to influence a voter’s decision whether to go to the polls.


Intimidation has survived the demise of the Jim Crow South. In the 2002 gubernatorial election, flyers were distributed in minority communities in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County urging people to vote on the day after the election and implying that you couldn’t vote if you owed parking tickets or had outstanding warrants. Our bill makes that a crime.


In his veto message, the Governor falsely cried “Fraud,” and set up a commission to study the issue. The Governor’s veto will be the first order of business on January 11, when the General Assembly reconvenes. I urge you to write the presiding officers, President Mike Miller and Speaker Mike Busch, in support of an override of the Voters Rights Protection Act.

“Experience has clearly shown that the existing process of law cannot overcome systematic and ingenious discrimination,” declared President Johnson 40 years ago. Systematic denial of the franchise has ended, but ingenious efforts to thwart this fundamental right still mar our electoral
process. When we override the Governor’s veto, these schemes to deny the franchise should end.

Embryonic stem cell research shows extraordinary potential for addressing scores of diseases and debilitating injuries. My bill to fund this scientific inquiry passed the House of Delegates but died in the Senate on the last day of the session because of a threatened filibuster.

Governor Ehrlich desperately wanted to keep this bill off of his desk. “The Governor has no position on the st