Delegate Sandy Rosenberg's 2001 Annapolis Diary

A quote from Hubert Humphrey's last speech hangs on my office wall. 

    The moral test of governance is how it treats those in the dawn of life, the children;  those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

     Amidst all my discussion these past 90 days of pragmatism, the role of the chairman, and other political or mundane considerations, I like to think that those words have guided my actions.  We are ultimately judged by the effect our actions have upon our fellow citizens.  Put less eloquently, they must meet the smell test. 

    From a more practical standpoint, the discipline and effort of writing a daily diary is an exercise I haven't undergone since my freshman year in college when my English 11 class met three times a week, and we handed in a paper three times a week.   Prof. Peterson's feedback was very helpful then and so has yours this time.   What struck me the most were the comments of those of you who know the ways of Annapolis but wrote that you were learning from what I wrote.   

    Allow me to close this diary with the words of Edmund Burke:

    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

    All the preceding, to paraphrase Hillel, is commentary.

Monday, April 9

    This is the day Robert's Rules of Order has made, let us rejoice and be happy in it.  It's the last day of the session, and we will be in and out of session from 10 am to midnight.  
                                           
    10:20 am  First priority this morning are my bills that require the House to concur in friendly Senate amendments.  No action yet on the legislation requiring that an advance directive be discussed before an individual is discharged from an inpatient stay for mental illness. 

    I speak to the Health subcommittee chair of Environmental Matters.   "I'll have to check with our chairman," he tells me.  "He runs the trains in our committee."  "The railroad operates similarly in mine," I reply.     (The trains are running on time on my bill, I soon learn.  The subcommittee chair was busy elsewhere when the full committee voted to concur in the Senate amendments.)
    
    12:20 pm  The only bill on my low tech file card where the outcome remains in doubt is the one creating a safe haven for abandoned newborns.     

    The bone of contention is whether we should allow infants to be left at police and fire stations, in addition to hospitals.  In response to concerns that hospitals might be too far away in rural areas, my bill included the additional sites.  That's the House position today.  If neither side budges, the bill will die.

    2:15 pm  After I check with Chairman Rawlings, my subcommittee moves unfavorable on the bills that we had not yet killed because we were concerned that the Senate sponsors might retaliate by taking some of our bills hostage.  There is one exception, a bill affecting the Commission on Indian Affairs.  Scout's honor.

    3:37 pm  We're voting on Senate bond bills.  Virtually all of these bills providing state grants to non-profits are crossfiled - introduced in both houses of the legislature.  The last set of decisions in the capital budget conference committee is deciding which bill will pass - the Senator's or the Delegate's. 

    I've written before about my newsletter rule: If I can say that I played a role in effecting public policy on an issue, I will discuss it in my end-of-session newsletter.  This is one of those instances.  It is of little consequence to my constituents if it's my bill for the Concord House Apartments that the Governor signs or my senator's.  What counts is that we got the money for this worthy project.  Your constituents know what kind of job you're doing; they don't know or care how many of your bills the Governor signed. 

    5:27 pm The Judiciary Committee's point person on the abandoned babies bill asked me if I would accept the Senate position.  I tell her that I'd accept allowing newborns to be left only at hospitals and not police or fire stations.  Half a loaf is better than none.

    6:00 pm  We've just adopted the last of my bills that required House concurrence in Senate amendments.  The four are green buildings tax credit, mental health advance directive, privacy of mass transit fare card records, and allowing funds in two public health programs to be carried over into the next fiscal year.  

    8:40 pm Earlier today, while at the rostrum to discuss another matter, I joined a conversation with the Speaker about the horse racing industry.  Pimlico Race Course is in my district, but my interest in the sport dates back to elementary school. 

    At issue is a bill that would again authorize $10 million in excess lottery revenue to be used for purse money.  Among the points the Speaker made was that Pimlico was not moving forward on the improvements it was  obligated to make under legislation passed last year and that even if it was, no lottery money was likely to be available this year. 

    I spoke with Buddy Roogow, the Lottery Director, who said that he currently projects a $5-6 million surplus, unless 111 is the winning number before the end of the fiscal year .  When I told the Speaker this, he was unmoved. (Later in the evening, our City delegation chair tells me that the Governor's chief legislative officer informed her the Chief Executive also opposed the bill.)

    11:20 pm  I learn that the abandoned babies bill is dead.   One of the three Senate conferees had agreed to support the House position but then failed to do so. 

    11:41 pm (19 minutes early) We adjourn sine die (without a day).

Friday, April 6

    "I'm taking a pragmatic approach to political reality."  

No, that was not me explaining my vote for the Armenian resolution or the Speaker's gun education measure, not to mention some other votes I've cast this session or in others.   It was former United States Senator Joseph Tydings, now a member of the University of Maryland Board of Regents, testifying in support of the Governor's collective bargaining bill for non-faculty employees in the university system. 

Tydings had been a vocal opponent of the legislation.  Today, in light of the amendments made to the bill by the Senate, he spoke in favor of it.  With no one in opposition, the bill easily passed the Appropriations Committee.  It's safe to say that the former Senator is not the only person whose support for this measure is not enthusiastic, but the Governor's is. 

I offered the prayer for this afternoon's session of the House.  Since Passover starts tomorrow night, I read from the portion of the Seder in which the four sons - wise, wicked, simple, and too young to speak, ask about the meaning of the holiday.  Coming from a family with three sons, I tell my colleagues, there is always stiff competition at our Seder as to who will be chosen to read the wise son's questions. 

Most eloquent in our debate this evening on the Armenian resolution was Delegate Kumar Barve, who spoke of his grandfather's relating the train cars dripping with blood upon arrival in New Delhi in 1947, when Muslims and Hindus were massacred in response to the partition creating India and Pakistan.  Yet, Del. Barve said he always abstained on resolutions of this sort, despite having once been asked to introduce one by the Indian-American community.  Many followed his lead; the vote was 79-11, with 51 not voting.  

Low Tech File Card Update  The gay rights bill passed, 90-47, with no debate.   Everyone knew where everyone stood.  The Senate passed my bills to streamline the State's procurement process for information technology and to allow state agencies to carry over money into the next fiscal year if consistent with their managing for results plan.  The latter is designed to avoid having money spent ill advisedly at the end of the fiscal year. 

Several of my bills await the House's concurrence in friendly Senate amendments.   That should happen Monday, when we'll be in and out of session from 10 am to midnight.  

Thursday, April 5

Floor debate today on the Armenian resolution was both eloquent and emotional, perhaps because this measure was so different from our customary subject matter. We shouldn't be passing judgment on events that occurred in another nation many years ago when our action may affect current relations between the United States and Turkey, argued the opponents. What took place there was an atrocity, and we have previously passed resolutions and paid for monuments to commemorate such events, argued the proponents. Since two unfriendly amendments were handily defeated, the resolution is likely to pass the House on Friday.

I neglected to mention yesterday which delegate is sponsoring the Gun Safety Education Bill. It's the Speaker. When the House leadership asked its whips to take a head count of the members yesterday, that point was made, when necessary. The bill passed the House today, 98-33.

Low Tech File Card Update Only three of my bills remain unacted upon by the relevant committee, and none has been killed, to my knowledge. (A chairman's decision to keep a bill in his desk drawer is not announced on the General Assembly's web site.) So, while few of my bills are languishing in committee, very little was acted on by the full Senate earlier today. There  was extended debate on the bill granting collective bargaining rights to employees of the state's colleges and universities. When the Senate reconvenes at 6 pm, a second filibuster is expected on the death penalty moratorium bill.

Wednesday, April 4

The state budget is the only bill we have to pass. The constitution requires it. Thus, it's the most important bill before us each session. That's part of the Appropriations Committee mantra, and I've repeated it myself many times. (Next year, however, is an exception. There are two other measures that must be passed - those redrawing the boundary lines for Congressional and legislative districts.)

Although we've enacted this year's operating budget, there continue to be aftershocks from the widespread concern over the Governor's underfunding of health care in his original budget submission. Senator Bobby Neall gave a floor speech in which he asked to be taken off the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee because of his concerns over the legislature's powerlessness in the budget process. Speaker Taylor has stated that consideration of a constitutional amendment giving the legislature more power in making budget decisions will be getting a lot of his time this summer. By defeating the amendment that reached the Senate floor earlier this session, the Governor may have won the battle but not averted a war.

With the budget behind us, the politics of symbolism took the House floor today. April 24 would be designated a Maryland Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide under House Joint Resolution 3. Every legislator has received, but not necessarily read, hundreds of e-mails from citizens of Turkey opposing this measure. The individuals weighing in on behalf of this measure have been less numerous but far more familiar and powerful - State Senator Perry Sfikas, the prime mover of this effort; U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes; and Orioles owner Peter G. Angelos.

The Gun Safety Education Bill would require that each county board of education develop and implement a program of instruction for firearms safety and accident prevention. That the bill was on the floor today is a minor miracle. It had been there a few weeks ago but was recommitted to committee. That usually means a bill is dead. In this instance, however, the Speaker intervened, and now both the National Rifle Association and gun control advocates support the bill. Debate on both of these measures will continue tomorrow.

Low Tech File Card Update: All sixteen bills are still alive. One passed today: House Bill 775 creates a Task Force to Study Adult Education Services, including services for adults who are incacerated or on probation.

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

I consider myself one of the more high tech delegates. I've introduced legislation on the issue. Today, there was a Senate hearing on my bill to streamline the state's procurement process for information technology. My laptop is always with me, unless I'm chairing the meeting. I can't be fully attentive if I'm constantly checking my e-mail. (That, of course, says something about my concentration level at other times.)

However, with six days left in the session, I'm about to go low tech.  After I finish this diary entry, I'm going to get a file card and write down the bill numbers of my legislation that's still alive, as well as other bills I have an interest in. I simply don't remember my bill numbers. In fact, of all the legislation I've worked on over the years, there's only one whose number I recall - Senate Bill 162 of the 1990 session. There are two reasons: it wrote the holding of Roe v. Wade into Maryland law, and there are 162 games in a major league baseball season.

Ten bills that I'm the lead sponsor of are now in the Senate: the green buildings tax credit, advance directive for people ending an inpatient stay for mental illness, and the IT procurement bill I testified on today, most notably. Six bills that I'm a co-sponsor of or have a keen interest in are still alive; gay rights, safe havens for abandoned babies, and welfare reform are the most important. One has passed: the bill renaming the Loan Assistance Repayment Program the Janet L. Hoffman Loan Assistance Repayment Program.

None of the remaining 16 is either controversial or a long shot to pass. However, I'm not taking any chances. Before my subcommittee met today to vote on Senate bills, I reviewed them with our staff member. If there was a Senate bill that we were likely to kill on the merits, I took it off the list. Why anger a Senator, who could retaliate by defeating or delaying  action on one of my bills in retaliation.

P.S. Yesterday's diary generated the most response of any that I've written, and I don't think it was my trenchant commentary about the budget bill.

April 2, 2001

After a contentious debate, prompted largely by concerns about the $5 million appropriation for parochial school textbooks, the House passed the budget, 117-17.

(I stand corrected on my assertion yesterday that the staff director undoubtedly asked the two budget committee chairs what outcome they wanted on the textbook issue. One of the people who knows has told me that he didn't have to ask; he figured it out on his own.)

Today was also Opening Day of the baseball season. Since the House was not in session this afternoon, I went to the game. And I saw something I had never seen before. The Orioles had a runner on first. The batter lined out to the third baseman, whose throw to first, trying to double off the runner, sailed into the stands. The runner was awarded third base. However, he failed to touch second and was called out after an appeal by the Red Sox.

Last week, after I had testified on one of my bills before the Budget and Taxation Committee, the following dialogue ensued:

Senator Munson: You're an expert. Me: Pause. ("On what topic?" I said to myself.)

Senator: On baseball. How do you think the Orioles will do this year?

Me: The Ravens won the Super Bowl, and the Terps are in the Final Four. Don't expect the Orioles to be in the World Series.

Despite the Orioles' 2-1 victory today, I stand by my statement.

Sunday, April 1

Monday is the 83rd day of our 90-day session - the constitutionaly mandated day for us to pass the operating budget of the State of Maryland.  So I spent much of the weekend in the conference committee where we resolved the differences between the House and Senate on the budget.

For every instance where the two bodies disagreed on how much money should be spent on a certain item, we had a chart listing the House position, the Senate position, and a compromise proposed by the nonpartisan  professional budget staff. 

Whether the state should purchase textbooks for parochial schools was the most controversial item in the budget.  The House cut the entire $8 million appropriation, and the Senate reduced it by $3 million.  The staff  compromise was the Senate position.  When I saw that suggestion, I knew that the final outcome was preordained.  

On an issue as contested as this one, the staff director undoubtedly asked the two budget committee chairs what outcome they wanted before proffering his compromise.  Had the two chairs and the two presiding officers not been supporters of this expenditure, this number would have been somewhere between the Senate's $5 million and the House's zero.  

In a supplemental (or amended) budget that the Governor submitted on Friday, he included an additional $30 million to address the deficit in mental health care.  The Governor has also pledged to address the inadequate salaries paid to community care providers for the developmentally disabled.  As you know, one of my highest priorities this session has been to get the Governor to remedy the underfunding of these public health needs in his original budget.

Our efforts to assist the Bolton Hill Synagogue and the Evergreen community in securing public money to preserve an undeveloped buffer between the synagogue and the Stony Run stream also benefited from the final days of budget deliberations.  Last week, I learned that Baltimore City's new Director of Recreation and Parks had higher priorities for preserving open spaces than the purchase of these two acres. 

I then told the City's lobbyist that unless the new Director had a change in his priorities, I would not be able to accede to the City's wishes on another budget matter that was in the jurisdiction of my subcommittee.  Last Thursday, the City's lobbyist told me that the City probably could find the money, provided it was not responsible for the maintenance of the land.  Today, I agreed to the City's position on the other matter. 

Friday, March 30, 2001 

When I entered the House chamber and saw the advocates for the gay rights bill sitting in the front row of the visitors gallery, I thought of Clarence Mitchell, Jr. 

The title of the legislation is The Antidiscrimination Act of 2001.  In my correspondence to constituents, in letters to the editor, in this diary, I have written of the need to extend the protections of the civil rights laws to yet another group that has been unfairly denied access to housing, jobs, and public accommodations. 

Clarence Mitchell, Jr. was the principal lobbyist on Capitol Hill for the civil rights movement.  He was building upon the efforts of Thomas Kennedy, who introduced the Jew bill, which allowed Jews to hold public office in  Maryland, and the suffragettes, who brought about the extension of the franchise to women.  

On the House floor, I saw two of my Republican colleagues looking at the sodomy provision in the State code. Anticipating the argument that this bill would be condoning criminal behavior, I called the Attorney General's Office. They confirmed what I thought.   This law was not being enforced against anyone because of a consent decree the State had entered into after the Court of Appeals had ruled that the law could not be applied to consensual activity by heterosexual adults in the privacy of their homes.


But the sodomy issue was not raised during the floor debate.  However, one of my colleagues did argue that since the Supreme Court had held that gays were not entitled to special protection under the law, they should not be covered under the civil rights law.   Since this is mixing legal apples and oranges, I rose to explain my vote for the bill.

What the Supreme Court held was that gays and lesbians are not entitled to special protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  That in no way means that a legislative body cannot conclude that they should be protected under the civil rights laws. 

Anticipating the remarks of the lone African-American member who opposes the bill, I also stated that since 1994, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, which Clarence Mitchell ran, had supported the federal bill extending civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.

The bill passed, 88-50.

Thursday, March 29, 2001

Last night was the Legislative Follies, the General Assembly's annual spoof of itself. I authored and read the "Top Ten List of Supplemental Budget Requests Submitted to Governor Glendening." Most of the requests were inside jokes, but the one that got the most laughs was:

For the Senators who filibustered the gay rights bill, an all-expenses paid vacation at Rehoboth Beach.

Today, with that piece of legislation before us, the House of Delegates was the world's most disciplined legislative body.

The word had had been passed to oppose all amendments. The slightest change in the bill would require Senate concurrence, and that would undoubtedly prompt another filibuster, which could kill the bill. So, as was the case on the abortion rights bill in 1991 and the gun control bill last year, the House had to swallow the bill from the Senate.

And our opponents obliged us by offering several outlandish amendments. One would have prohibited an openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendedered individual from being employed by a public school. Another would have provided that the bill may not be construed to authorize the adoption of a child by a homosexual individual. These failed on lopsided voice votes.

There was discussion about the Chamber of Commerce amendment that I wrote you about before. It says that an employer may take "reasonable acts to verify the sexual orientation of any employee or applicant" in response to a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Attorney General's response to my question as to what reasonable means in light of the relevant legal precedent has now been shared with the committee chairman. Our hope is that a court would rely upon this legal advice when trying to ascertain the legislative intent in adopting this amendment.

Wednesday, March 28

Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.

What Johns Hopkins graduate student Woodrow Wilson wrote about the Congress in 1885 applies today to the Maryland General Assembly. Thanks to the learned reader who reminded me of the future President's insight.

For instance, people will ask me what I think of a first-term member. "I can't judge someone by their performance on the floor," I reply. "You should talk to someone who serves with this delegate on committee." As a freshman myself, I was advised to work hard in subcommittee and be selective as to what bills I would talk about before the full committee.

Fairly early on down here, people label you a work horse or a show horse. The latter are often those who seek and obtain press coverage that is disproportionate to their influence on legislation. That doesn't mean you should be antagonistic towards the press. Reporters have a role to play in the process, a constitutionally protected one at that.

You need to explain what you're trying to accomplish in a way that is understandable and credible to the average voter. However, if you leak to the press after participating in a discussion that's supposed to be confidential, you won't be invited to many such sessions in the future. Neither should you discuss your strategy to pass or kill a bill before you execute it. I made that mistake once. That was the end for that brilliant tactical maneuver.

There are 1462 bills before the House of Delegates and 901 in the Senate. This place could not function if the committees didn't sift through those 2300+ ideas. Neither could any other organization if faced with a high number of proposals to consider.

My discussion of the bills that disappear into the committee chairman's desk, never to be voted on, elicited the strongest reactions of anything I've written about in this diary. Here's what two of you wrote:

It's like another level of representative government, if the chairpersons are supposed to further protect us from popular but ill-advised motions. Don't we trust this judgement to be made wisely by the entire General Assembly?

There should (I recognize moral imperatives have little place in politics) be a way that if a certain number of committee members, potentially a supermajority of some kind (or maybe a simple majority) can overrule the chairman's refusal to call a  vote. In any event this is no way to make decisions, and I think the legislators appropriately look like they are not committed to debate and democracy.

In this instance, people's lives are at stake. The bill the chairman is threatening to keep from a vote would impose a moratorium on executions. The extraordinary significance of this legislation has prompted a counterweight: another chairman sponsored the bill and is seeking a vote on it. The Senate rules do provide for circumvention of the committee system. Last year, this procedure was invoked to get the gun control bill out of this same committee.

Sometimes, however, this anti-democratic process works to the benefit of issues I care about. Anti-choice bills have not been voted on in this committee and thereby kept off the Senate floor because the chairman opposes them. In my committee, the chairman has held off on a vote on bills that are politically attractive but fiscally irresponsible.

Tuesday, March 27

The committee chairman is a very powerful person in Annapolis.

He or she exercises extraordinary control over which bills are reported favorably to the House or Senate floor and which bills are not. Some of the latter remain in the chairman's desk and never come up for a vote because the outcome would not be to the chairman's liking. In the chair's defense, many of the bills that get stuck in the desk are popular but ill advised.

One example of this power recently made the newspapers. A two-year moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty passed the House this past Saturday, but the chair of the Senate committee that now has the bill says he won't take a vote on a bill that he vigorously opposes. However, there's a complicating factor. Another Senate committee chair is the sponsor of the moratorium in that body and is pressing the Senate President to make sure the bill comes to the floor for a vote.

Even the chairman must answer to a higher authority, the presiding officer. The Senate President may be the one to break the tie between his two committee chairs on the death penalty moratorium. Since my green buildings tax credit bill was part of the House Leadership package, the time, effort, and gentle persuasion of the Speaker's Office resulted in a favorable report. Otherwise, the bill would have been sent to summer study.

There are many other exercises of the chairman's power that don't get written about. Scheduling a bill hearing for late in the session handicaps its chances of getting passed. Before my subcommittee make its budget decisions, I meet with the chair of the full committee to see if there are any issues he feels strongly about. Same goes for the bills that are assigned to my subcommittee.

Yesterday, after my green buildings bill passed the House without debate at 8:57 p.m., I wrote, "No one has ever called the Maryland House of Delegates the greatest deliberative body in the world."

Alan Rosenthal, one of the nation's leading academics on state government, spent the last two weeks observing the leaders of the General Assembly in meetings both public and private. Here's his response:

The Maryland House of Delegates may not be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but I saw one hell of a lot of deliberation taking place during my two weeks in Annapolis. Not necessarily when you expect it, and perhaps not on the floor at 8:57 p.m.

My flippancy got the best of me. Many of the crucial decisions about legislation take place in the committee and elsewhere, before a bill reaches the floor. And most of the time, the result is a sound one.

Monday, March 26

The Orioles first game of the season may not be for another week, but the high stakes poker game is definitely underway in Annapolis, on issues large and small.

The budget is the biggest issue. Should we wait for the Governor to play his hand in the supplemental budget? If he adequately funds the health care programs that need additional dollars, the legislature, controlled by Democrats, would not have to take a public stance critical of a governor of the same party. If these programs don't receive adequate support, how do we craft a document that acknowledges the unmet needs without giving our opponents the ammunition to attack us for failing to solve the problem.

Under any scenario, my strong belief is that we need a mechanism to keep this issue before us and the public after we adjourn in two weeks. If we don't have a legislative group with the formal responsibility of examining how to meet these needs within the fiscal constraints of our state budget, then we will return here next January, dependent solely upon the Governor's decision whether or not to provide funding.

On another matter, I've decided not to show my cards. My bill that would create a tax credit to encourage the use of environmentally-friendly building techniques was debated on the House floor on Saturday. Questions were raised as to the impact this would have on state revenues. A final vote on the bill was delayed until today.

This morning, a representative of an enviromental group came to ask me how we should respond to these concerns about House Bill 8. I suggested that all he needed to do is talk to the delegates who had raised doubts about the legislation two  days ago.

This afternoon, House Bill 292, a tax credit for services donated by health care professionals, was debated on the House floor. When several people spoke against it, I began to think that we might need to give my colleagues a flyer explaining HB8 before the vote on it this evening. But when only a dozen members voted no on HB 292, I decided we didn't need to draw attention to my bill my distributing a one-pager extolling its merits.

House Bill 8 passed the House, 136-3, at 8:57 p.m. At that late hour, there was no debate.

No one has ever called the Maryland House of Delegates the greatest
deliberative body in the world.

Friday, March 23

    We held a budget seminar in the senior House leadership meeting this morning.  The subject, you will not be surprised to hear, was how to express our concern about the underfunding of health care in the Governor's budget this year.

    Among the questions: What is the fiscal outlook for next year, in light of the national economy and existing budgetary obligations?  How does that constrain our ability to fund health care?  Should we modify our process for restraining the growth in the operating budget?   What are the political consequences if we do nothing?  What are the political consequences if we overpromise?  Should we create a task force that would continue to focus attention on this issue after we adjourn in two weeks? 

    The answer: a joint resolution that describes the unmet needs, calls upon the Governor to fund them, and establishes a mechanism for public and legislative input as the Governor prepares his budget for next year. 

    The black hats won on House Bill 437, which authorized under-age stings to deter the illegal sale of tobacco products to minors.  When I learned yesterday that the bill had died in committee, my first reaction was to see if we could use the budget to authorize these enforcement actions anyway.  Yes was the answer from the Attorney General's Office.

    From past experience, I know that an amendment such as this could be quietly adopted in the conference committee of ten members that resolves the differences between the actions taken on the budget by the two houses. It's but a slight exaggeration to say that only those who were in the room when it happened would know about this action when the budget came back to the House floor for final approval.

    But people would learn about what we had done when enforcement actions were taken under the authority of that obscure provision in the budget.  I'm not concerned about those who opposed HB 437; it's  my ongoing relationship with the chairman of the committee that heard the bill.  So I asked the State Health Secretary to meet with him about this idea.  Since the chairman pledged to work with us in drafting legislation for next year's session, I dropped the budget bill alternative.

    The moral of this story: even though it may be legal to do something, it may not be wise to do so.

Thursday, March 22

The day began with a State House reception for the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. However, before Ambassador Ivry starts discussing the prospects for resuming negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, I'm off  to join peace talks of another sort. The chairmen of the Appropriations and the Environmental Matters committees are trying to resolve their differences over how the House of Delegates should express its concern about the Governor's underfunding of health care in a discally prudent way. I could say that peace is at hand, but it might be premature.

Discussions about the DNA issue with two judges leave me optimistic that the enactment of legislation is not likely to result in the Court of Appeals' rejecting the rule that would allow such newly discovered evidence to be offered at any time after conviction. Even though the legislation is narrower in scope than the pending rule change, both would provide complimentary avenues for an individual to prove his innocence, they advise.

Here's a new entry in the Annapolis lexicon. We were talking about another legislator's discussions/negotiations with the Governor. "Do his concerns relate to the budget or geography?" asked a colleague. Translation: Is he asking that a project in his district be funded in the supplemental budget, or is he trying to get a commitment regarding the neighborhoods that will be included in his district when we redraw the lines next year, consistent with the one person, one vote principle?

Geography will be every member's obsession next year. A multi-colored map in the Sun this week shows whether census tracts have increased or decreased in population. My district may have grown in population, based on this map. To be sure, I've asked for the numbers for each census tract. And to be even more sure, I've asked for legal advice on how to build a record of support for maintaining a district that includes neighborhoods in both Baltimore City and County.

Wednesday, March 21

Lots of meetings and discussion about strategy today: some of which I can't write about because no decision has been reached yet and some of which I can't write about because a decision has been reached but I need to be discrete.

How should the House of Delegates express our belief that Medicaid and services for the developmentally disabled and the mentally ill should be adequately funded in next year's budget? And how do we do so in a fiscally responsible way?

We could pass a bill requiring that additional services be funded, "to the extent provided for in the budget." That concluding phrase means that even though it might cost $20 million to do what the bill says should be done, we recognize that the State and therefore the Governor may not have the revenue to do so. Another option is to pass a resolution expressing our belief that the highest priority for next year's budget should be significant funding increases for these programs.

I've written before about my role in expanding the use of DNA evidence that would show the innocence of a convicted individual. A motion for a new trial could be filed at any time, if based upon such evidence, under the proposal approved by the Rules Committee of the judiciary at my urging and still awaiting final action by the state's highest court.

Consequently, I didn't introduce a bill on this issue. Others did, however, and now legislation that is narrower in scope than the pending rule change has been reported to the Senate floor. If that bill passes both houses in its present form, would the Court of Appeals see that as preventing it from adopting the broader rule? If the bill fails, would the Court consider that evidence of legislative intent?

Tuesday, March 20

When I was told last Friday that the votes were there to report the gay rights bill out of committee, my first reaction was to ask, "Are we ready for a filibuster?" Little did I know that the "extended debate" would take place even before the bill got to the Senate floor. Opponents drafted more than a dozen amendments and prolonged the committee debate into a second day. This afternoon, the bill received a favorable committee report, by a 6-5 vote.

The Boy Scouts were excluded from the legislation by one of the few amendments that was adopted. But, you ask, didn't the Supreme Court already rule that the Scouts had to be exempted from the New Jersey civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Yes they did. This amendment may be legally redundant but at the same time, politically necessary. It could help get additional votes for the bill, which is also the case with provisions stating that the legislation does not provide for same-sex marriages or domestic partner benefits.

There's an Annapolis axiom that you don't buy a landslide. That is, don't incur more obligations than needed to get the bill passed. In this instance, these amendments are the coin of the realm for moderate-conservative members who might otherwise vote no.

There's one adopted amendment, offered on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, that is consequential. It says that an employer may take "reasonable acts to verify the sexual orientation of any employee or applicant" in response to a complaint of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. While others went to the Governor's press conference celebrating the favorable vote, I was off to the Attorney General's Office to get a legal opinion as to what reasonable means in this context. Our expectation is that the response would be used by the courts to determine the legislature's intent in adopting this language.

Monday, March 19

I spent today and part of the weekend reacting to developments, favorable and not so favorable, affecting my bills.

Good news on the mental health front. There was a favorable committee vote on my bill requiring that the advisability of an advance directive be discussed with an individual about to be released from inpatient care. Initial word was that the bill was unamended, but it turns out there is a friendly amendment.

The Senate has not accepted my budget bill narrative calling for a study of whether to implement a successful Arizona program that offers probationers literacy and other adult education classes. The reason: a bill that's already passed that body would create the Task Force to Study Adult Education Services in Maryland.

So I read Senate Bill 399. It makes no mention of services for individuals on probation. I also learned that an identical bill has been introduced by my Appropriations Committee colleague, Joan Cadden. She agreed to my suggestion that we draft an amendment adding probationers to her bill.

Mixed news on my two bills that are part of the House leadership package. My proposal to create a Task Force to Study Privacy Issues Related to Information Technology was amended out of House Bill 14 by the Economic Matters Committee. However, there is another bill which establishes a 20-member Joint Committee On Technology, and Economic Matters expects this new group to conduct the privacy study.

I already knew that there would be a one-year delay in the effective date for my tax credit bill for environmentally friendly buildings. This afternoon, I was told its enactment may be delayed until next year as well. The subcommittee working on this legislation feels it needs further study, and the prospects for the identical bill that's been crossfiled in the Senate are not good. That's what a committee staffer said at 2 p.m. today.

But four hours later, the bill had been revived. An amended version would be acceptable to the Senate, one of the Speaker's aides told me. And hopefully to the Ways and Means Committee as well.

Friday, March 16            

    John McCain returned to Annapolis today.  With the U.S. Senate taking up the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation next week, this was the last stop on the two Senators' national tour to publicize the issue. 

    Since I'm co-sponsoring a bill to create public financing of campaigns in Maryland, I was invited to a private reception and picture taking session.  I asked Senator McCain, "When you graduated from the Naval Academy, did you ever think you'd be returning to Annapolis as a U.S. Senator?"

    "No, I didn't," he replied.  "Those were the four best and most formative years of my life, but I enjoyed my time outside the walls [of the Academy grounds] far more than my time inside the walls."  McCain graduated fifth from the bottom in his class, which he mentioned later in his public remarks. 

    His only contact with the state government as a midshipman came during Army-Navy Week.  "Late one night, a group of us were marching past the Governor's Mansion," McCain related to me.  "The governor, he was a Republican, I recall, came to the door in his night clothes.  He was quite an orator and gave us a very stirring speech."

    Yesterday, the Senate version of the public financing bill I'm co-sponsoring in the House was killed in committee - a shot across the bow that was delivered, not coincidentally, the day before the McCain-Feingold
visit.  My prediction is that campaign finance reform will have to pass at the federal level before we enact any significant changes in Annapolis.     

Thursday, March 15

Although today is the Ides of March, the more important date on my calendar at the moment is the Crossover Day, March 26. If your bill passes its house of origin after then, when it crosses over to the other body, it goes to the Rules Committee. Then you have to get the Rules Committee to refer your bill to the committee that can hold a hearing on it. This delay is not helpful.

What follows are my bills with a reasonable chance of being passed by the House in time to avoid that detour.

The first two are part of the House leadership package. So their prospects in the House are very good. The bill creating a tax credit for environmentally friendly buildings is being amended by a Ways and Means subcommittee. Its effective date will be delayed until 2003 because we couldn't make room in the budget to pay for it until then.

The legislation creating a Task Force to Study Privacy Issues Related to Information Technology is also being reviewed by a subcommittee. This group would conduct a comprehensive study of all existing state laws and policies concerning the collection, distribution and privacy of personal information by technological means, by both state government and the private sector.

No one opposed my bill requiring that before a person with a mental illness is released from inpatient care, the hospital staff must discuss with that individual the merits of an advance directive. By signing such a document, that person would agree to being medicated should he or she become incompetent to make an informed choice about treatment. No opposition doesn't guarantee favorable action in Annapolis. So I lobbied the committee chairman about the bill at breakfast today. He said he would get the sense of his committee on my legislation.

Two of my bills will be considered by the full House of Delegates on Friday. One would provide privacy protections for the information the state stores when you use either an electronic toll payment system or the electronic payment card that will provide access to several public transportation systems in the state. The other would streamline the State's procurement process for information technology.

I've got some other bills that might make it out of the House of Delegates, but I don't want to jinx their chances by discussing them now.

Wednesday, March 14

Pent-up pressure inevitably seeks an outlet.

I never took "Physics for Poets," but I know what I just witnessed on the House floor as we debated the budget of the State of Maryland for four hours this afternoon and evening. The Governor's underfunding of various health needs prompted "the most serious debate about the budget I've ever witnessed in my twenty-plus years down here," said one observer.

The vast majority of the amendments offered today would have provided additional money for health care - drug treatment; community services for the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, and the frail elderly; Medicaid; and nursing home care. Since the legislature can't increase the size of the budget, most of these amendments would have paid for the health care increases by cutting money for higher education or elements of the Governor's Smart Growth package - the preservation of undeveloped land and a revitalization program for older neighborhoods.

Only one amendment passed. It restored a $2 million cut my subcommittee had made in a $20 million increase in nursing home reimbursements. I argued that this increase would force us to m,ake a commensurate reduction in the benefits of a new prescription drug program for seniors, but to no avail.

"It's clear what the message is today," said Pete Rawlings, chair of the Appropriations Committee, during debate on one of these amendments. "We're frustrated and outraged by the Governor's underfunding of health care."

Despite the gossip I so dutifully reported yesterday, there were no amendments offered on either parochial school textbooks or abortion. Consequently, the budget will pass the House with no money appropriated for the former. However, the Senate is expected to approve this funding. Then, like Banquo's ghost in Macbeth, this issue will reappear at the budget conference table.

March 13, 2001

My first job after graduating from law school was with the Housing Authority of Baltimore City. Shortly after I started working there, I was given a tour of several public housing projects. At Murphy Homes, I was in the office of the manager, Joel Newton, and noticed photos of race horses on his wall. "Isn't that Secretariat?" I asked. "Yes," replied Joel. "I moonlight as a maitre d' at Churchill Downs on Derby weekend."

I was reminded of that story today because my subcommittee reviewed the capital budget of the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development. The State has provided $65 million for the replacement of Murphy and three other high-rise housing projects. Decaying and drug infested structures have been or will be replaced with communities where 2/3
of the residents are homeowners. Urban nightmares have become showcases of redevelopment.

Two summers ago, I went to the top floor of the University of Maryland Hospital to watch the implosion of Murphy. In light of my involvement with it over the years, I wanted to see Murphy come down. But my emotional attachment paled in comparison with that of the hospital employees beside me that day. They had lived in Murphy Homes.

Since the operating budget will be debated on the House floor tomorrow, today was the calm before the storm. In light of the Governor's underfunding of public health programs, I expect there will be a fair number of delegates raising questions about the actions taken by my subcommittee.

Rumors are also swirling about whether an amendment will be offered to provide $5 million for textbook aid for parochial and private schools. One theory holds that instead of risking a loss on that issue, there will be an attempt to impose stricter limits on Medicaid funding of abortions. If you can't vote with us on parochial aid, would go the argument, do so on abortion.

We'll find out tomorrow.

March 10, 2001

To pass a bill, you have to bat 1.000. At each of the many steps along the way of the legislative process, you have to succeed. To kill a bill, you need to prevail only once. If legislation passed the first house, delay it, amend it (both houses must pass it in identical form), or defeat it in the second house. If it passed both houses, get the Governor to veto it. Failing that, challenge it in court or petition it to referendum.

I ran into a lobbyist this weekend who told me that he had only a few bills left this session. "You must not have many bills you're trying to pass," I said. "Yes," he replied. I, on the other hand, have a lot of bills I'm still trying to get enacted.

You may recall that I'm the lead sponsor of one of five bills that would provide immunity from prosecution for a parent who leaves a newborn child at a hospital, fire station, or police station. Late Friday, one of the other bills was amended by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the House floor. I would have preferred that my bill was the one acted upon, but what counts is what the bill does, not whose name is first. For 19 years now, I've had the newsletter rule. If I can say that I played a role in effecting public policy on an issue, I will discuss it in my end-of-session newsletter.

Providing additional money for mental health services in the state budget is one of my leading concerns this session. Thursday, the Governor and the legislature's fiscal leadership agreed to provide $20 million in the supplemental budget for both mental health and prescription drugs for seniors. The Appropriations Committee would have made $15.4 million available for these purposes by reducing the state employees' salary increase from 4% to 3%.

Friday, after learning about this cut, the Governor backed away from his commitment of Thursday. Instead, he pledged to address these issues next year. Sticking with the state employees' union, apparently, takes precedence for the Governor.
 

Friday, March 2

We began making budget decisions in my subcommittee today. It reminded me why I no longer have Potomac Fever, the burning desire to seek higher office in Washington.

The six of us were making public policy in a reasoned, non-partisan manner. As we discussed an issue, I'd sense where the consensus was and propose a change to the staff recommendation before us. Instead of requiring that the Department of Housing and Community Development spend $200,000 on housing counseling to discourage mortgage fraud, we made that amount contingent on a study of how best to advise buyers who are vulnerable to the flipping scam,which we would review.

Sometimes we needed to send a message. With great fanfare last year, the State and City announced a major initiative to prevent lead paint poisoning, an issue of longstanding concern to me. The City committed to spend $6 million annually, but for next year, it has proposed to spend only $1.25 million of its own funds. The rest would be federal money. We told the City it had to provide an additional $1 million of its own funds.

If there was no consensus or the majority was moving in a direction I didn't like, I'd suggest we postpone the vote. The Community Legacy Program is a high priority for the Governor, and these funds would be of significant benefit to renewal efforts in older neighborhoods in Baltimore City and County. But the votes weren't there yet. I put off a decision and quietly advised the department's lobbyist he needed to lobby my colleagues so that the votes would be there the next time.

The ability to help make public policy in this manner is but one of the reasons I no longer have Potomac Fever. Since Maryland is overwhelmingly Democratic, we don't have the partisanship that often gridlocks the federal government. Running for the House of Delegates is far less expensive and time consuming than running for Congress. Finally, while more than a 90-day job, being a delegate allows you to do other things as well; in my case, that's teach law school and watch and play baseball.

Monday, March 5

Today, we made the pie bigger, instead of making the slices smaller.

The subject was how to spend money in the Cigarette Restitution Fund. Earlier this session, I wrote about the Governor's decision to reduce the money going to programs designed to stop people from smoking and to prevent others, especially minors, from becoming addicted. These dollars would go instead to an escrow fund, until the resolution of the law suit over the legal fees due Peter Angelos for handling the State's litigation against the tobacco industry.

I had originally thought that there should be an across-the-board reduction in all health-related programs funded with this money, instead of cutting only those I just mentioned. Although that would spread the pain equally, it would also mean less money for drug treatment, for example, to make more available for smoking cessation.

What I was unaware of until today is that some of the money we appropriated from this fund last year would not be spent by the end of the current fiscal year. So my subcommittee decided to require that any such money be spent first on the education and cessation programs that would otherwise be cut. More money for some programs, less for none.

Today also brought my first dead bill of the session. House Bill 314 would have provided compensation for business owners who suffer a loss of good will because the government's condemnation of their building forced them to move. Despite the fact that my legislation was based on a model statute, we failed to convince the Economic Matters Committee that there was an objective way to quantify good will. My first thought is to sit down with an accountant this summer to discuss the best way to do that.

Tuesday, March 6

A heckler's veto is the constitutional principle that an unlawful threat to disrupt speech should be deterred, instead of letting the heckler veto someone else's First Amendment rights by disrupting his or her speech. The attempt by the supporters of a rival candidate to drown out then-Councilman Martin O'Malley's press conference near City Hall two summers ago is an example. We are approaching a heckler's veto on the House floor with regard to abortion.

I've written before about how an amendment dealing with abortion resulted in the withdrawal of a bill creating the Office of Women's Health. Today, I was told that because an abortion-related floor fight might occur if my frozen embryo bill is considered on the House floor, it is likely to stay in committee. Thus, despite being in the minority, the pro-life faction, like the heckler, may be able to veto favorable action on yet another bill. At my suggestion, however, my subcommittee has asked the Health Department to report on the impact of inadequate federal funds on family planning and other services.

Later this week, I and my Appropriations Committee colleagues will decide whether to keep $8 million in the budget for the purchase of textbooks to be used in private or parochial schools. Then the full House will vote on this issue.

My nineteen years of experience tells me what might happen if the money is deleted. Today, I read House Bill 1397, which would provide a tax credit to an individual for donating computer equipment to a public, private or parochial school. Two years ago, I voted against a similar measure because it did not provide this tax benefit for donations to public schools. That bill did not pass. HB 1397, introduced late in this session, after it became apparent that the textbook money was in jeopardy, could become the vehicle for assisting those schools nonetheless. Some members who voted against the budget item might vote for the tax credit, in an attempt to assuage those constituents upset with their vote on the former. We shall see.

Wednesday, March 7

I've yet to learn whether my subcommittee needs to make additional budget cuts so that the full committee can reach its target of $225 million. As of noon, $45 million in additional reductions needed to be made.

Last night, my subcommittee voted on all of the recommendations made by our legislative analysts, with the knowledge that every action was subject to being reconsidered. We rejected cuts in substance abuse treatment but did reduce a $20 million increase in nursing home funds by $2 million. Although the Governor's budget seriously underfunds Medicaid and mental health services, he did provide more funds for nursing homes. The union for workers at those facilities has been lobbying us not to take any cuts. It's no coincidence that the Governor increased money in a health care area where unionized workers would benefit.

We're not supposed to legislate in the budget, but we often prod the executive branch by asking it to study an issue and report back to us before the next session. For example, I introduced House Bill 860, which states that a judge can require participation in a literacy or GED program as a condition of probation. I don't expect my legislation to pass. In fact, a judge already has the authority to order this.

What I hope to accomplish this session is to include narrative in the budget calling for a study of whether to implement a successful Arizona program that offers probationers literacy and other adult education classes. Its graduates have significantly higher probation completion rates, followed by longer periods of being arrest-free.

Yesterday, language calling for such a study was adopted by Appropriations subcommittees. If the report concludes that Maryland should follow this model, then we will have created momentum for budgeting more money for this purpose next year.

Today was the hearing on my bill. The Judiciary committee chairman asked me how I would pay for an increase in literacy classes offered probationers if my bill passed. I told him I was working on finding the money.

Thursday, March 8

Her hands did not stop trembling. The witness was speaking about her son, healthy until the second semester of his junior year at Penn State. Then, she and her husband were following the ambulance that took him to the hospital. Undifferentiated schizophrenia was the diagnosis.

Next to her were the sister of a 47-year old man, also ill with schizophrenia, and a man living with his mental illness, here to testify as a member of an advocacy group of individuals with mental illness. From the anguish on their faces, they both seemed to be reliving a similar moment in their lives.

At issue were my two bills relating to mental health. The first would require that an inpatient psychiatric facility counsel an individual, prior to release, on the advisability of developing an advance directive. Such a document would enable an individual to authorize family or mental health service providers to administer care should that person became incapable of rendering consent. In most cases, this would mean that if the individual stopped taking medications, a designated person could administer them. There was no opposition to this bill, and no cost to the State should it pass.

The second would require the State to pay the full cost of psychiatric treatment in the community for the severely mentally ill. At present, 37.5% of the fee is the responsibility of the patient. Since most often this individual has severe mental illness and thus a very low income, that portion is left unpaid. As a result, outpatient mental health care providers are facing serious financial difficulties. There was opposition to this bill because it would cost the State $2.7 million should it pass.

February 23

Today is the 45th day of the session. We're half-way there, chronologically. Work-wise, we're far from it, but that's the norm. Our budget hearings end on Thursday, and the full committee takes action on the budget on March 9. With the uncertainty in the economy, the impending tax and spending changes in Washington, and the Governor's failure to provide adequate dollars for certain existing programs, our byword will be caution. At a meeting of the Baltimore City delegation this morning, we briefly discussed an issue that will be before us next year, the extension of the City-State partnership to improve the Baltimore City public schools. The 1997 legislation creating that relationship sunsets in 2002. State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick said today that she has a high level of confidence in the operation of the new system. Since Dr. Grasmick is very highly regarded in Annapolis, that will go a long way towards ensuring the passage of the legislation that would continue the City-State partnership. However, the 1997 law also affects the level of state aid that goes to every school system in the state. Recalculating these formulas will be an integral part of next year's bill. You can rest assured there will be something for every one. Abortion, on the other hand, is not an issue where money or compromise can increase your majority, as I've pointed out before. It was 10 years ago this week that the legislation codifying Roe v. Wade was signed. Today, the abortion issue killed House Bill 4, which would have created the Office of Women's Health in the State health department. During the floor debate on HB 4 earlier this week, a pro-life delegate said that he was drafting an amendment to ban the use of state funds for abortion clinics. The prospect of this floor fight has prompted the bill's sponsor to obtain a commitment from the Governor that he will create this Office by executive action. The bill will be recomitted to committee, where it will stay. (I hope that the prospect of an abortion-related fight will not veto the chances of my frozen embryo bill coming to the House floor.) The state employees who collect the bad debts owed the State receive a bonus if their unit's total exceeds that of the prior year, under a law that I sponsored. During the five years this performance incentive has been in effect, collections have increased 121%. This past year, the lowest paid workers received a $4,000 bonus, we were told at a hearing this afternoon. I've gone to the annual luncheon of the Central Collection Unit. These people are very proud of the work they do and thus of the bonus they've earned.

Monday, February 26

Shortly after I began working at WJZ-TV, my boss, the Program Manager, told me, "You might think tv is glamorous, but this business is a matter of budgets and unions." Shortly after I joined the Appropriations Committee 18 years ago, I was told that the budget is the principal policy making document of state government. We've begun the time of the session when that is borne out. Our subcommittee hearings end this week, with two of the most important budgets we review, the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration and the Family Investment Program, our welfare reform agency. Then we begin making decisions on Friday. As I've discussed before, we can only cut the Governor's budget. We can't even reduce the money for substance abuse by $500,000, for example, and then add an equal amount to welfare reform. If we cut money from the budget, only the Governor can restore the funds by submitting a supplemental budget. The budget decisons we make in Appropriations over the next ten days will dictate, to a large degree, whether bills with a significant price tag can be favorably acted upon by the five other House committees. Here's why. We need to cut in the neighborhood of $200 million from the Governor's budget to make it consistent with our limits on the growth in state spending. An additional $25 million in reductions will make room for programs that the legislature would like to see funded in the supplemental budget. As a subcommittee chairman, I've seen a tentative list of programs that the House of Delegates would like the Governor to fund. Providing a state subsidy for prescription drugs was on that list. Hearings were held today on bills that would create such coverage. However, the nature of the coverage and hence its cost must be consistent with the amount budgeted for it as part of the $25 million package. On the other hand, if a program is not on the final version of the list, the bill creating the program is not likely to pass the House. For instance, House Bill 8, my tax credit bill for "green" buildings, which is estimated to cost $2.4 million, was not on the list I saw. Since this bill is part of the House leadership package, I told one of the Speaker's legislative aides that we would need to get it included.

Tuesday, February 27, 2001

I've heard the numbers before. 200,000 in need of drug treatment. 60,000 in Baltimore City alone and another 60,000 in the region. 45,000 treatment slots now funded with tax dollars. Another 3,000 with the proposed $22 million increase in next year's budget. Those were sobering numbers indeed when I heard them at this afternoon's budget hearing for the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration. Nonetheless, our budget analyst has proposed some reductions in the appropriation; our budget strategy may require us to take some of her recommendations. Earlier in the day, I testified on behalf of the Welfare Innovation Act of 2001, of which I am the lead sponsor. Over the last six years, our caseload has declined by more than 67.0%, from 227,887 cases to 75,126. That is a significant accomplishment, but much remains to be done. For those who have found their first job, we must now provide them with the skills to secure a better-paying second job. For those fathers who are absent from their child's upbringing, we must provide incentives for them to get involved. That's the thrust of this year's Welfare Innovation Act. The bill was heard by the Appropriations Committee and will be referred to my subcommittee. Like the budget process, if I can count to a majority of four, with the concurrence of the chairman of the full committee, the bill will reach the conference committee with the Senate. There, my Senate counterpart is a Republican. Despite that, partisanship and ideology have been nonexistent as we've worked on this issue over the last six years.

Wednesday, February 28

The time and effort spent obtaining co-sponsors on a bill is the biggest waste of time in Annapolis. Thirty-three members of the Senate signed on to a proposed constitutional amendment concerning the budget process. The bill failed, however, because only 25 members voted for it, four less than were needed. Those eight votes reportedly switched after being pressured by the Governor, whose budgetary powers would have been reduced by the bill. It's easy to sign on to a bill. It's not so easy to withstand lobbying by the Governor or the word from your chairman that he wants a bill killed. This has happened to me as well. Several years ago, I was persuaded that my bill providing enhanced protections for religious freedom would benefit from having co-sponsors of different faiths. We got 62, only eight shy of a majority of the House. After a parade of witnesses contended that the bill would open a Pandora's box of litigation and abuse, I asked that the bill not be voted upon by the committee, to avoid a lopsided defeat. Earlier this session, I asked the five other members of my subcommittee if they wanted to sign on to a bill affecting the budget of the Department of Human Resources because it would be referred to us. At the same time, I told them that if Chairman Rawlings wanted the bill killed, I'd have to ask three of them to join me in voting against it. My normal practice is to seek one co-sponsor on the committee that will be hearing the bill. That way I have someone who will be an advocate for the legislation when it's being considered by the people who will determine whether or not it gets to the floor of the House. Last week, I wrote that "Why do we need this legislation?" is the question a sponsor must answer to pass a bill. I was reminded of that today. The New Markets and Community Renewal Act, an assortment of tax incentives designed to spur private sector investment in economically distressed urban and rural communities, passed the Congress last December. I have introduced House Bill 1257, which would conform State law to this new statute. While preparing for my testimony today, a state housing official complimented me for acting so soon after the federal law had taken effect. As we were testifying, however, I realized that we were not persuading the committee that they needed to address this issue this session. We had failed to answer this question: Would an effort by the State to have an area designated a renewal community by the federal government be aided if we passed this bill or hurt if we don't? Only a letter answering that question affirmatively, from the Housing and Community Development Secretary to the chair of the committee, can salvage HB 1257 this session.

Thursday, March 1

It's not often that a witness bring tears to my eyes, but that happened twice today. First time was a woman whose life had been saved at the Shock Trauma Center after a horrendous car accident. She was testifying in support of a bill that would increase funding for the State's Emergency Medical System. The second was a single mother of four. After twice failing the exam for a job with the Postal Service, she realized she needed more than a high school degree. A student at the Baltimore City Community College, she was urging us to maintain welfare assistance for people like herself. Two weeks ago, I expressed the hope that serious discussions between the Calvert school and the neighboring Tuscany-Canterbury community would be jump started by a Sun article about our bill that would block the school's expansion plans. It did generate a lot of mail, including a very belated response from the school to our letter of last November. Late this afternoon, we met with Calvert's lawyer to discuss how to bring about a compromise solution.

Friday, February 16

The role that my 42nd District colleagues and I often assume on
neighborhood issues is very much like that of a lawyer. We are advocates
for the community, seeking an outcome that serves its interests.

Two such issues are currently before us: the Bolton Hill Synagogue's move
to Evergreen and the expansion plans of the Calvert School in the Tuscany
Canterbury neighborhood. Compromise is near in the former but not the
latter.

The synagogue has purchased a property that has been unused for over
forty years. The Evergreen Association is concerned about the effect of this
new use upon the nearby residences. But why is this neighborhood issue
different from most other neighborhood issues?

In most instances, it's the community versus an outside institution.
That's the case with Calvert School and Tuscany Canterbury. But most of the
Bolton Hill congregants live within two miles of the site, which also means
that they live in the 42nd District.

The second difference: the property is adjacent to the Stony Run stream.
Preserving an undeveloped buffer between the synagogue and the stream serves
everybody's interests. That can be accomplished with Program Open Space
funds. My colleagues and I have told the synagogue and the neighborhood that
we would help secure POS dollars if they reach agreement on the renovation
and use of the building. Such an agreement is close at hand.

That is not the case with the Calvert School's expansion plans, which
would displace more than 100 elderly tenants and more than double the size of
the school's campus. The Tuscany Canterbury Neighborhood Association, the
community most directly affected, opposes Calvert's expansion because of the
impact it would have on the residential nature of the neighborhood.

Last November, we wrote the president of the Calvert Board of Trustees,
expressing our hope that a compromise can be reached that meets the academic
and athletic needs of the Calvert School, without disrupting the lives of
these seniors and drastically altering the fabric of the neighborhood. Last
month, when Mayor Martin O'Malley met with representatives of the school, he
proposed a compromise, which the school has not accepted.

In the absence of any movement towards compromise, we introduced
legislation that would prohibit the demolition of the apartment buildings. A
Sun article today about our bill generated a good deal of response. We'll
see if it jump starts serious discussions between the school and the
community.

Monday, February 19

Monday night is an opportune time for citizens to lobby legislators
because the session starts at 8 p.m. Today being Presidents' Day, several
groups were out in force.

I met first tonight with environmental activists from the district. My
legislation creating an income tax credit for green buildings was one of five
bills on their list, as was the Governor's Community Legacy program, which
will focus on older neighborhoods where intervention could avert decline.
Earlier today, my subcommittee reviewed the budget for this proposal, which
is very similar to the Healthy Neighborhoods Initiative for Baltimore City
that I helped fund last year.

Next was a group of Catholic constituents. On a death penalty
moratorium, textbook aid for parochial schools, outlawing racial profiling,
and increasing the earned income tax credit for the working poor, we were in
agreement. But we parted company on abortion.

"A doctor in an abortion clinic shouldn't be allowed to decide that a
young girl doesn't need to give notice to her parents," said one woman. "The
law the voters overwhelmingly approved on referendum leaves it up to the
informed medical judgment of the doctor, where it should be," I replied.
(It's my experience that this woman was typical of most pro-lifers, who think
that those of us who are pro-choice believe that any abortion is a win for
our side, instead of an option that should remain open to a woman and that
could be avoided through family planning and sex education.)

Although the Catholic Conference spoke against the gay rights' bill as
recently as this fall, it was not on the written or spoken agenda tonight.
The dogma that didn't bark.

Ironically, a rally for that bill was my next stop. After being
introduced as one of the most articulate members of the General Assembly, I'm
not sure that I lived up to my billing throughout my extemporaneous remarks.
I did, however, conclude:

In my religion, we're fortunate enough to celebrate our freedom from
slavery in Egypt with the Seder every year. At the conclusion of the
service, we say, "Next year in Jerusalem." For the gay rights bill, I
say, "This year in Annapolis."

Tuesday, February 20

Why do we need this legislation?

That's the question you need to answer to pass a bill. The burden is on
the sponsor to demonstrate that the problem you're trying to address requires
a change in the law.

Tomorrow is the hearing on my bill to require that before a couple
undergo in vitro fertilization, they must sign an advance directive governing
the disposition of any cryopreserved eggs, sperm, or embryos in the event of
death, divorce, or a decision by either individual to discontinue
participation.

Today I strategized for that bill hearing with representatives of the
three Baltimore-area hospitals that provide this service. Each of them
already requires that participants sign a form similar to that which my bill
would require. Consequently, I began our discussion by saying, "Somebody
tomorrow is going to ask, Why do we need this legislation?'"

The reasons we came up with: there would be uniformity, the bill gives a
hospital immunity for acting in compliance with the parties' written
directive, and the chances of a dispute winding up in court are reduced.
We'll find out tomorrow if the committee considers those to be good answers.

Wednesday, February 21

Very few issues are black and white for me after 18+ years in Annapolis.
There's almost always some gray area, providing an opportunity to compromise.
But not with the cigarette companies.

They are black hats. They knew their product was harmful. They
marketed it deceptively. They lobbied and litigated heavy handedly and for
the most part successfully, until recently. Fortunately, their political
power began to wane with the settlement of the states' lawsuit against the
industry.

Four years ago, I put in a bill that would allow the state to conduct
sting operations to see if retailers were selling cigarettes to minors. It
failed. Two years later, my bill made enforcement of the laws regarding
tobacco sales one of the spending priorities for Maryland's share of the
tobacco settlement. Today, I testified on behalf of a bill that would
authorize under-age stings, which the law already permits to deter the sale
of liquor to minors.

Sitting on my left was Dr. Georges Benjamin, the Maryland Health
Secretary, who had introduced the bill. Sitting on my right was Taylor
Branch, a friend and constituent, whose op-ed article four years ago had
prompted me to get involved on this issue.

Some of the questions committee members asked us evidenced a desire to
"play games" with this bill, as I later told Secretary Benjamin. He told me
that that a lobbyist for one retail operation that would be affected by the
bill had told him that they were going to war over this legislation. "I want
to be one of your lieutenants in this battle," I responded to the Secretary.
This is a battle I really want to win. Our kids will benefit greatly if we
do.

The "Why do we need this legislation?" question was asked at the hearing
on my frozen embryos bill. "Most, if not all, providers of this service
already require that the couple sign a document evidencing their intent as to
how unused embryos should be handled," said Delegate Ken Schisler. "If the
only part of your bill we adopted was granting legal immunity to the health
care provider for disposing of the embryos in accordance with the couple's
intent, would that be sufficient?"

To the witness for the Catholic Conference, who had testified in
opposition to the bill, Del. Schisler asked: "Aren't you opposed to the the
very act of in-vitro fertilization, much less how these embryos are disposed
of? " Del. Schisler, who is pro-life but an attorney and a respected member
of the committee, will be the key to the bill's prospects, I concluded
afterwards.

Thursday, February 22

I had a positive conversation with Delegate Schisler today about the
frozen embryos bill. He recognizes the need for legislation. His specific
question: If immunity is to be provided for the health care provider in
disposing of the embryos at the back end of this process, how do we ensure
that the parties have given informed consent before signing the advance
directive? He's looking for an answer from an ethicist. I've asked the
hospitals that provide this service to look for one.

As a liberal, I try to make government work better. When it does, people
are more willing to pay for public programs. For example, spend it or lose
it is the dilemma that government agencies often face at the end of the
fiscal year.

House Bill 904, which I introduced, would allow State agencies to retain
up to 50% of their unspent or unencumbered balance to spend in the next
fiscal year, in a manner consistent with the Managing For Results goals of
the unit. When we passed a pilot program six years ago, $400,000 of unspent
funds were used to implement the Quality Case Review Program at the city
jail, with an annual savings of $1.8 million.

Today's bill hearing was before my own committee, Appropriations.
Several members asked favorable questions. The chairman, whose views count
the most, was silent.

To support the effort to bring the 2012 Olympics to the
Baltimore-Washington region, legislation has been introduced to create the
Chesapeake Regional Games Authority. During the hearing on this bill, I
e-mailed my 16-year old niece and nephew, asking them what event they'd like
to see if we were awarded the Games. Rachel, who was home from school
because of the snow, responded, "My favorite event is probably the high
diving or gymnastics." "If the Games are here," I replied, "I'll do my best
to get tickets." In this instance, all politics is familial.

Friday, February 9

    Peter Angelos is playing hard ball over his fee for handling the State's
lawsuit against the tobacco industry, with consequences for the education and
public health programs that are funded by Maryland's share of the settlement
with the industry. 

    After a competitive bidding process, the Angelos law firm was awarded the
contract for this litigation. There was no reimbursement for expenses
incurred, but 25% of any damage award the State received would go to the
firm. 

    In 1997, a trial court judge issued a ruling that adversely affected the
State's lawsuit.  Mr. Angelos had legislation introduced the next year to
reverse that ruling.  It became clear to me and many others that this bill
would not pass  unless an amendment was added to reduce the 25% contingency
fee.  The Senate lowered the fee to 12.5%. 

    On the last weekend of the session, this legislation was still pending.  
Two letters from Mr. Angelos were distributed on the House floor.  The first
opposed the Senate's change; the second reluctantly concurred in it.  The
bill passed on the ninetieth and final day, with his fee lowered to 12.5%.

    Mr. Angelos is now suing the state, seeking 25% of the $4 billion we will
receive over the next 25 years.  Consequently, a court has ordered that 25%
of the money be escrowed.  For the fiscal year 2002 budget now before us,
that equals $40 million. 

    Where reductions should occur in programs funded by the Cigarette
Restitution Fund was the subject of a briefing before the Appropriations
Committee today.  Last fall, the Governor proposed a reduction in the money
going to Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland Medical Group for
treatment and research related to cancer and other smoking-related diseases. 
The outcry that resulted has prompted the Governor to change course.

    He's now proposing reductions of $19 million in programs designed to stop
people from smoking and to prevent others, especially minors, from becoming
addicted; $3.6 million for wiring schools for the Internet; and $4.2 million
for technology advancements in higher education. (9% of this year's
settlement award, $14 million, had already been set aside for attorney fees.)


    Instead of targeting some of the programs funded with these dollars, I
think there should be an across-the-board reduction.  We should spread the
pain equally, instead of singling out certain programs. 

    A personal footnote: At today's hearing, we learned of a man in St.
Mary's County whose life was saved because his colon cancer was detected
early when he was screened under a program funded by these dollars.  One of
you wrote me about a family member with bipolar disease and the travails
you've endured to secure a mental health provider whose care your insurance
policy will cover.  Those personal stories remind me that human beings are
affected by the decisions I make here.

Monday, February 12

    Nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging, wrote Samuel Johnson.

    In Annapolis, nothing concentrates the mind like a bill hearing. 
Introducing legislation gets the attention of everyone who would be affected
if the bill becomes the law - bureaucrats, special interests, average
citizens. 

    Two examples.  When the government condemns private property for a public
purpose, such as community redevelopment, it compensates the property owner
for the value of the building and provides relocation assistance.  But a
business is more than fixtures.  It's the blood, sweat and tears that an
entrepreneur has invested over the years.  It's a smile that keeps customers
coming back. 

    I've introduced House Bill 314, which would compensate a business owner
for the loss of that goodwill when a building is condemned.  The business
must prove that it had goodwill prior to the taking, that the taking injured
or destroyed that goodwill, and the value of the lost goodwill.  This
legislation is based upon a model eminent domain code and a California law.

    Small business owners will be testifying in support of HB 314 at the bill
hearing tomorrow. The Maryland Association of Counties, whose members would
see their condemnation costs rise if the bill passes, will oppose it.  After
learning that today, I started discussing possible compromises with that
group.  The retail merchants' lobbyist is holding similar conversations with
the Governor's Office.  Without the bill, these talks wouldn't be taking
place.

    Over the last seven  years, 723 people have graduated from the Baltimore
City drug court program by successfully completing all recommended treatment
without being returned to prison for parole violations.   Someone who is
clean can get a job.  Someone who is literate can get a better job.  That's
why I've sponsored House Bill 860, which It would allow a judge to require
participation in a literacy or GED program as a condition of probation. 

    Today, I received a letter from State Superintendent of Schools Nancy
Grasmick, in which she discussed the positive effect of such training upon
the recidivism of ex-offenders and indicated her support of studying how
Maryland could implement a successful Arizona program.

    The chairs of the Appropriations subcommittees that review the education
and correctional budgets are cosponsoring HB 860.  I asked them to do so
because they're in a position to add language to the budget that would bring
about the review Superintendent Grasmick proposed.  That, in turn, would
create momentum for funding the programs my bill would authorize.

Tuesday, February 13

    Who could be against a bill requiring that each year the POW/MIA flag be
flown from the State House on 10 holidays?  Our soldiers who were held
prisoner or are still missing in action are certainly worthy of such an
honor.  But once you fly their flag, how do you say no to other worthy
groups? 

    After listening to the floor debate on House Bill 24 this morning, that's
what I had concluded.  But when only 12 "no" votes registered  on the voting
board, I decided there was safety in numbers and voted yes. I did, however,
draw the line at House Bill 51, requiring that the flag of the United States,
the State flag, and the POW/MIA flag be flown year round at each rest area,
welcome center, and exhbit center within interstate and state highway
rights-of-way.  This time, joined by 37 of my colleagues, I voted the courage
of my convictions.

    Two conflicting Annapolis paradigms at work here: You have to learn how
to say no to people, and you have to pick your spots.

    At the hearing on my condemnation bill, I tried to emphasize the need to
provide adequate compensation for a business owner who has been forced to
relocate a business.  Committee members raised valid concerns as to how this
would be objectively quantified.  If the committee accepts the premise of the
bill, that an owner should be compensated for the loss of business, it will
try to address that issue.  It should help that the chair of the subcommittee
that will review the bill is a co-sponsor.

Wednesday, February 14

    The budget process is a mystery to most of those who don't serve on a
budget committee.  The state operating budget is a bill like every other
bill, but at the same time it differs from every other bill. 

    The budget is the only bill we must pass.  The state Constitution
requires it.  It is also the only bill that the Governor cannot veto.  Unlike
all other bills, there is budget language, which restricts how money can be
spent, and there is committee narrative, by which the budget committees
"request" that a department study a certain issue.

    Consequently, there are legislators, lobbyists, and journalists whom I
respect who need a tutorial on the budget process when they venture into this
unfamiliar territory. 

    Thus, for both the Sun and the Post to write today about our budget
hearing for the Mental Hygiene Administration, something significant must
have taken place.  A $23 million deficit is indeed newsworthy.

    When the Medicaid program switched to managed care four years ago, mental
health was carved out, at the urging of this community.  Reimbursements are
still made on a fee-for-service basis.  Even at the low rates at which
providers are reimbursed, the cost of the care provided has exceeded the
money budgeted.  Nor is the problem limited to Medicaid.  Private hospitals
are not being adequately compensated by the insurance industry for their care
of the mentally ill.

    I took some steps this morning in hopes of addressing this problem.   I
asked our budget staff to draft restrictive budget language that would
pressure the Governor to provide additional money foer mental health
treatment in this year's budget.  BlueCross BlueShield of Maryland is
considering becoming a for-profit  corporation, the Sun reported today.  If
it does, the company's assets, potentially $1 billion, would go to the
Maryland Health Care Foundation, under existing law.  A portion of that money
could be used to eliminate that $23 million deficit.  I've already begun
lobbying for it.

Thursday, February 15

    I did something today that I had never done before in my 19 years in the
legislature.  When testifying in support of my bill that would provide
immunity from prosecution for a parent who leaves a newborn child at a
hospital, fire station, or police station, I was joined at the witness table
by the lead sponsors of the four other bills on this same issue.  (A Bronx
cheer to those Annapolis wise guys who thought that today was the first time
I had ever voted against the House leadership.)

    An unwanted newborn is better left at a hospital than in a dumpster.  
Half of the states have enacted laws designed to encourage the safer
alternative.  That's why several of my colleagues also wanted to introduce
bills. 

    However, I went about drafting mine in a distinct way.  I saw this as an
opportunity for both the pro-choice and the pro-life community to work
together.  So I asked Delegate Anne Healey, a pro-life leader, to join me in
convening a work group to draft our bill.  Planned Parenthood, the Maryland
Catholic Conference, the Maryland Hospital Association, the Harford County
State's Attorney, and the Departments of Human Resources and Health and
Mental Hygiene participated. I would expect much of the consensus we achieved
to be adopted by the Judiciary Committee as it works on this issue.

Pre-Weekend Update: No bill will be introduced to require a hospital to
provide for abortions if it receives state money for construction...The Janet
L. Hoffman Loan Assistance Repayment Program bill got a favorable report in
the Education Subcommittee of Ways and Means...I've had an amendment drafted
for the eminent domain bill, for discussion purposes, that would provide
compensation for the loss of profit, as determined by cash flow, for the
first 12 months after a business closed because it had been condemned.

Monday, February 5

The law can compel someone to do something - attending school until 18 years old. The law can prohibit someone from doing something - practicing a profession without a license. Or the law can give someone a financial incentive to do something - making a charitable donation. Environmental protection is an area where the law does each of the above. Tonight, I completed my written testimony on House Bill 8, which provides a state income tax credit as an incentive for building owners to use environmentally sound systems and materials in the construction or rehabilitation of a structure. Some of the additional expenses for "green" buildings can be recouped in the long-term through lower utility bills and, in some cases, higher rents, but the benefits to the building owner or tenant do not equal the costs, with the existing technology. Last year, the Governor introduced the Water Resources Protection Act, which mandated the installation of nitrogen removal technology into all septic systems. The bill offered a tax credit to alleviate the high cost, but the mandate was thought to be too great an imposition. HB 8 provides the same State income tax credit but on a voluntary basis.

Tuesday, February 6

Sherlock Holmes realized that a certain crime had been committed by someone known to the victim because the dog didn't bark at the perpetrator. When the gay rights bill is heard, one dog that won't bark is the Maryland Chamber of Commerce. Instead of opposing the legislation, as it has in the past, the Chamber has taken no position, I learned today. The Greater Washington Board of Trade, the Montgomery County Chamber, the Greater Baltimore Committee, and the high tech community argued against working to kill the bill. Neither side, it turned out, had sufficient votes for the Maryland Chamber to take a position. In years past, the Chamber and the Catholic Conference have been the principal institutional opponents of this legislation. Pro-choice is not an empty slogan. We should respect the right of a woman to choose whether to have a child, and we should respect the right of doctors and nurses not to participate in a medical procedure that violates their beliefs. Under Maryland law, a person may not be required to "perform or participate in, or refer to any source for, any medical procedure that results in artificial insemination, sterilization, or termination of pregnancy." This "conscience clause" was overwhelmingly adopted by the same General Assembly that passed the abortion law which was approved on referendum. Today, Delegate Maggie McIntosh and I tried to persuade a pro-choice legislator not to introduce a bill that would require a hospital to provide for abortions if it were to receive state money for the construction of any of its facilities. To me, such a requirement would be comparable to President Bush's decision to cut off government aid to overseas organizations that provide abortions. Both require recipients of government funds to do something that is contrary to their beliefs. The bill hearing today on my green buildings tax credit bill went well. Among the groups testifying in support were the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Building Owners and Managers Association of Greater Baltimore. No one spoke in opposition.

Wednesday, February 7

Several years ago, on my first visit to the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum, I noticed a poster of the President, sitting pensively in an overstuffed chair, presumably in the Oval Office. What really caught my attention was the text above the photo. It was from an address JFK had made at Amherst College, my alma mater, for the groundbreaking of the Robert Frost Library in October 1963, his last public appearance in New England. A friend at Amherst sent me a photo of the President delivering that speech, and I took some black and white pictures of Frost Library when next on campus. Ever since then, the poster and the photos of JFK and the library have hung in my office. This fall, I paid my second visit to the Kennedy Library, this time with my nephew, Elliot, on our way to Fenway Park. A copy of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s draft for the Amherst speech, with the President's handwritten changes, was on display. "When power intoxicates, poetry restores sobriety," wrote Schlesinger. "When power corrupts, poetry cleanses," edited Kennedy. When I got home, I asked Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend if she could get me a copy of that speech draft. She very graciously did, and that text has now joined the poster and the photos on my office wall. One thing that hasn't changed since President Kennedy's day is the power of the committee chair. JFK's first legislative victory in 1961 was on a vote to increase the membership of the House Rules Committee, where liberal legislation had been buried at the hands of a Dixiecrat chairman. Late this afternoon, I checked the hearing date for abortion bills in the State Senate. The chairman has scheduled them for his committee's last day of hearings, March 14. That's good news because late in the 90-day session, time becomes an enemy if you're trying to get a bill passed. But the chairman has also scheduled the gay rights bill for that same day. The chairman giveth and the chairman taketh away.

Thursday, February 8

President Kennedy is not the only Democrat on my office wall. A plaque contains the following excerpt from the last speech given by Hubert Humphrey: The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. Discussing the lobbying reform bill last week, I wrote that wealthy corporations and individuals will always have more power and influence than the needy and their non-profit advocates. I try to be one of the voices in Annapolis for those whose interests aren't always heard, those who are, in Humphrey's words, in the shadows of life. I'm just back from speaking to the legislative briefing of the Mental Health Association about two bills I've introduced. One would provide a cost-of-living increase for the workers who provide care for the chronically mentally ill who are living in the community. The other would require that an advance directive, authorizing the administration of medicine should a person become incompetent to make an informed choice about treatment, be discussed with a patient before his or her release from a residential facility. Far too many of the mentally ill are in the shadows of life. I'm very proud of the fact that I have brought together the advocates for the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled. Instead of lobbying separately, and sometimes at cross purposes, they now work together in many instances. Sandy's kids, they call themselves.

Friday, January 26

Many of those former Orioles have very fond memories
of Memorial Stadium. So do I. Adapting the Stadium structure and site for
both office and residential use would be a home run, but the state Board of
Public Works voted this week to knock it down.

I often tell friends visiting Baltimore that the decisions not to
demolish the Otterbein and Fells Point neighborhoods for highways were
crucial to the City's redevelopment. Preserving Memorial Stadium would follow
that tradition. A last ditch effort to save Memorial Stadium was initiated
today when an appeal of the demolition permit was filed.

The Stadium is a public structure, but the government frequently condemns
privately owned buildings to further redevelopment of an area. Two years
ago, I successfully sponsored a bill that allows Baltimore City to take
immediate possession of certain abandoned properties so that an entire block
can be razed and then improved. Senate Bill 509 of the 2000 session
authorized Baltimore County to exercise eminent domain and undertake
redevelopment projects. Compensation issues have also been raised by the
redevelopment of Howard Street.

Today, I introduced House Bill 314, which would provide compensation for
business owners who suffer a loss of good will because of a taking by eminent
domain. A business owner would have to prove that business was lost because
of the forced relocation and that the loss cannot reasonably be prevented by
relocation or procedural change.

Saturday, January 27

Today would have been the 101st birthday of my grandmother, Sylvia C.
Hecht. When I first ran for the House of Delegates in 1982, she invited her
entire apartment building to a coffee for me. In subsequent elections,
whenever anyone would ask me which candidates I was supporting, I would tell
them, "Ask Grandma whom I told her to vote for." She remains a special
person in my life.

Monday, January 29

The First Amendment is one of my passions.

Striking the appropriate balance between the expression or belief of a
minority and the will of the majority is the genius of the First Amendment.
While the courts make the binding decisions in this area, it is still
important for the legislature to avoid infringing upon these rights.

For much of the past decade, I have attempted to restore protections for
religious exercise that the courts had provided prior to an unfavorable
Supreme Court decision. I have successfully preserved the privacy rights of
library users, in response to the FBI's "Library Awareness Program," and
repealed Maryland's criminal defamation law, which had been used to punish
people who criticized public officials.

However, there are times when First Amendment protections may conflict
with other civil rights. Some are concerned that this would happen under the
legislation prohibiting discrimination against people because of their sexual
orientation.

I asked the Attorney General's Office for its opinion on this matter.
Today, I received the response: such a law would survive a challenge that it
violated the free exercise rights of individuals or religious institutions in
the overwhelming majority of cases. If the application of the proposed
legislation in any particular situation were to present serious
constitutional issues, a court would most likely construe it not to apply in
that particular circumstance, instead of invalidating the statute.

I hope that this letter will allay concerns that protecting people from
discrimination because of their sexual orientation would unconstitutionally
burden the First Amendment rights of certain individuals and religious
faiths. But the General Assembly is a political body, not a court of law.
So I expect we will continue to hear claims that religious beliefs would be
violated by extending civil rights protections to gays and lesbians.

Tuesday, January 30

This past summer, I testified for the government in the political
corruption trial of an Annapolis lobbyist and legislator. Today, we
debated the ethics reform bill that is the General Assembly's response to the
issues raised by this case.

House Bill 2 would authorize the State Ethics Commission to suspend the
registration of a lobbyist who knowingly and willfully violates the lobbying
law or has been convicted of a criminal offense arising from lobbying
activities. It would also prohibit a lobbyist from initiating or encouraging
the introduction of legislation for the purpose of opposing it.

That was the crux of the criminal trial. The lobbyist for the paint
industry, Gerard Evans, was accused of having Delegate Tony Fulton threaten
to introduce legislation that would have significantly increased the
liability of his clients for having manufactured and sold lead paint, when
they knew it was harmful. The prospect of this bill enabled Evans to
increase his fees for lobbying to kill it. As the legislature's leading
advocate for lead paint poisoning prevention, I testified that Del. Fulton
had never worked with me on this issue and had not spoken to me about his
proposed legislation.

The ethics bill will pass the 141-member House with over 100 votes later
this week. However, if a secret ballot were taken, HB 2 might fail. Many of
my colleagues believe that only editorial writers and Common Cause find fault
with the impact of lobbyists and campaign contributions upon the decisions we
make.

I disagree. The public's perception of each of us is affected by the
excesses and corruption of some. We can't truly level the playing field.
Wealthy corporations and individuals will always have more power and
influence than the needy and their non-profit advocates. But we can and
should put reasonable limits on lobbyists and discipline those who violate
the rules.

Friday  January 19

In my heart, I'm one of the most liberal members of the legislature. But in my head, I'm a liberal insider, willing to accept compromises that further a progressive agenda. Two examples: abortion rights and welfare reform. As we were drafting the pro-choice bill that ultimately was approved by the voters as Question 6, the advocacy groups were opposed to including a requirement that notice be given to the parents of minors who were seeking an abortion. "To pass a bill, you have to be able to count to a majority in both houses," I said. "In this case, however, we also have to count to 50.1%, a majority of the voters when this bill is petitioned to referendum." A notice provision was included in SB 162, and 62% of the voters voted for it. On welfare reform, my guiding principle has been to give people the opportunity to move from dependency to self sufficiency, but with a consequence if they fail to do so. For example, to help those mothers who have substance abuse problems, we require all program applicants and participants to be screened for drug use. If a person does not comply with the prescribed treatment, her portion of the family's monthly benefit is cut. An additional $4 million has been appropriated for these services as a result. I have been guided, in significant measure, by the credo of the Democratic Leadership Council, the New Democrats. "Opportunity for all, responsibility from all, a community of all Americans," said President Clinton in his farewell speech last night, echoing the DLC refrain. "It is a progressive politics that can win support in America as it is, not as it was," said Al From, the founder of the DLC, at a breakfast meeting today in Annapolis. "The dominant voters are the rising learning class. We must modernize progressivism for the Information Age."

Monday

"Watch what we do, not what we say," advised John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's Attorney General. During the Presidential debates, George W. Bush said he would be powerless, if elected, to reverse the FDA's decision to authorize the abortion-inducing drug, RU-486. Today, his aides indicated that the drug's approval would be revisited by the new administration. On Mr. Bush's first working day in the White House, he also announced that he would be reinstating a Reagan-Bush I era policy that barred U.S. aid to overseas family planning programs that also provide abortion counseling. I spoke tonight to a pro-choice rally marking the 28th anniversary of Roe. Wade. We can't trust what candidate Bush said about RU-486 or what Attorney General-candidate Ashcroft said about Roe as settled law, I told the crowd. What we should trust is the will of the voters of Maryland, who spoke resoundingly in support of a woman's right to choose when they approved the Question 6 abortion referendum by a 62%-38% margin. At this year's session, I am leading an effort to have the Governor fund additional family planning efforts, a program to discourage younger siblings of unwed teenage mothers from becoming pregnant as well, and a media abstinence campaign. Fifteen years ago, I was one of the Gang of Four, two pro-choice and two pro-life legislators, who successfully initiated a similar effort. I am again working with pro-life members.

Tuesday

Chairing an Appropriations subcommittee is the best job in the House of Delegates. You have significant impact over the Cabinet departments whose budgets you review. There are very few administrative responsibilities. Most importantly, you only have to know how to count to four - a majority of the six members on the subcommittee. Today, I began my eleventh session as a subcommittee chairman. Today, I also learned that the best job in the House will be a little tougher this year. Our budget staff briefed us on the Governor's budget. Existing services are underfunded by $350 million. A disproportionate portion of this deficit is in programs reviewed by my subcommittee - Medicaid, social services, and mental health services. Only the Governor can put an item in the budget; the legislature can only subtract. Thus, we must make enough cuts in the budget submitted by the Governor to make room for some or all of these underfunded programs and then urge him to provide the money needed for these services in a supplemental budget. This is in addition to the $208 million in reductions necessary to bring the budget within our limits on the growth in state spending.

Wednesday

Getting a bill passed is not the only way to change public policy for the better. Last year, I introduced legislation that would have broadened the circumstances in which newly discovered DNA evidence would entitle someone to a new trial. The bill did not pass. This summer, I worked on this issue with the Rules Committee of the judiciary. That panel has recommended that a motion for a new trial may be filed at any time, if based upon DNA testing or other generally accepted scientific techniques that would, if proven, show the innocence of a person who had been convicted. Currently, newly discovered evidence must be presented within one year of the imposition of sentence, unless the defendant has been sentenced to death, when such evidence can be offered at any time. This new rule awaits final approval from the Court of Appeals. After a mentally ill man shot a stranger in broad daylight in downtown Baltimore several years ago, my budget subcommittee had the Mental Hygiene Administration study how to promote the use of medications and other services by people with long-term mental illness who are living in the community. The result: an advance directive that allows someone with a history of mental illness to agree in advance to being medicated should that person become incompetent to make an informed choice about treatment. I will be introducing a bill requiring that the merits of an advance directive be discussed with a patient when an after care plan is prepared for that person upon release from a residential facility. An historical footnote. At today's budget hearings, Del. Talmadge Branch commended the Office of Health Quality for its response to his complaint about the treatment provided Parren Mitchell in a nursing home. Since the next budget we reviewed was that of the Human Relations Commission, I reminded my colleagues that Parren had served as its Executive Director. As many of you know, I also worked for Parren in his campaigns and on Capitol Hill.

Thursday

If all politics is local, when it comes to drawing the boundary lines of legislative districts, all politics is census tracts. This afternoon, the redistricting process was discussed at a meeting of House Democrats. I currently represent portions of Baltimore City and Baltimore County. When this district was created after the 1990 census, it was the first time that anyone represented both of these jurisdictions in the General Assembly. There were some initial concerns because only 25% of the population of this district was in the County, but the overwhelming sentiment today is that the common interests of the City and the County, such as neighborhood revitalization and crime prevention, are being well served. Additional communities must be added to my district for it to be consistent with the "one person, one vote" principle when I run for reelection next year. I hope and expect that it will continue to be a City-County district.

Friday, January 12

We know how to prevent lead paint poisoning among children, but we have
failed to put the laws and resources in place to do so. Far too often,
children are poisoned before any remedial action is taken. I've been working
on this issue since my first year in Annapolis. If middle class children
were being poisoned, instead of African-American kids in slum housing, this
disease would have been eradicated a long time ago.

A series of articles in the Baltimore Sun in the fall of 1999 focused
public attention on lead poisoning. As a result, Governor Glendening and
Mayor O'Malley committed $50 million over a three-year period to enhance
inspection, treatment, and remediation.

Today, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning held a rally in
Annapolis to note the accomplishments of the first year of this enhanced
effort, which include the prosecution of 120 city lead violations and
$425,000 in fines levied against property owners. I spoke at the rally and
will continue to oversee this effort through my budget subcommittee.

Purple was the color of the day, with the Ravens playing the Raiders on
Sunday for the AFC championship. Some Senators were chastised for wearing
Ravens jerseys on the Senate floor. Several people complimented me on my
purple tie. "It's an Amherst tie," I told them, "but the color's the same."

Monday, Martin Luther King Day

Driving down to Annapolis, I heard excerpts on the radio from both Dr.
King's "I Have a Dream" speech and Robert F. Kennedy's remarks the night Dr.
King was shot.

This evening, I saw Kathleen Kennedy Townsend at a reception. "Listening
to your father's speech was haunting," I said. "It read like poetry, even
though it was extemporaneous."

We were both moved.

Tuesday

When I decided to enter public service, I was not burdened by college and
law school loans that needed to be paid off. That is the exception. Today,
the average graduate of the University of Maryland Law School has a $75,000
debt. That is quite a deterrent to taking a lower paying job working for the
government or a non-profit.

Maryland's Loan Assistance Repayment Program (LARP) helps repay a portion
of a graduate's academic debt if he or she takes a lower paying public
service job. I consider LARP one of my most significant legislative
accomplishments.

I have urged Governor Glendening to increase funding for the program.
Today, I was informed that 340 individuals will be aided in the current
fiscal year because of a budget amendment he has implemented. However, 150
eligible applicants will remain unassisted.

The first bill I filed this session, House Bill 143, would rename this
program the Janet L. Hoffman Loan Assistance Repayment Program. Janet,
Baltimore City's long-time lobbyist in Annapolis, was one of my legislative
mentors.

At her funeral, her daughter, Connie, said that one of the honors her
mother was proudest of was the decision of the Maryland Chapter of the
American Society for Public Administration to recognize individuals who have
made an outstanding contribution to local government by awarding them the
Janet L. Hoffman Award.

I have been prompted to introduce legislation by newspaper articles,
budget hearings, and Supreme Court decisions. This is the first time I was
inspired by a eulogy. Janet would be proud.

Wednesday

Higher education, smart growth, and justice, fairness and inclusion were
the themes of Governor Glendening's State of the State address today. The
Governor wants to make higher education a universal experience by lowering
financial barriers to access, create a Community Legacy program for
revitalization of older neighborhoods, outlaw racial profiling, and prohibit
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. (The Governor was also
kind enough to single me out for my role in helping make Maryland "a national
model in the battle against cancer and tobacco addiction" since I introduced
the bill that established these priorities for use of the tobacco settlement
funds.)

The Governor also submitted his budget today, but it exceeds the General
Assembly's limit
on growth in the operating budget by nearly $200 million. To maintain the
state's AAA bond rating, the highest awarded by Wall Street, and to avoid
having to reduce or eliminate programs should there be an economic downturn,
the legislature imposes a limit on budget growth that is based upon the rise
in personal income in the state.

Consequently, my Appropriations Committee colleagues and I will be
reducing the proposed budget by at least $200 million. Our goal is to be
fiscally sound and socially responsible.

Thursday

Skeptical of John Ashcroft's confirmation hearing conversion on the
constitutionality of a woman's right to choose, I did a little research. I
then sent this letter to the New York Times.

Dear Editors:

The Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of abortion to be
settled law, Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft has said at his
confirmation hearings.

Three sitting justices would disagree.

"We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be
overruled consistently with our traditional approach to stare decisis in
constitutional cases," wrote Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices
Scalia and Thomas, as well as then Justice White, in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2855 (1992).

With the power to appoint Justices over the next four years,
President-elect Bush and Mr. Ashcroft are very much in a position to unsettle
the law.

My grandfather, Samuel I. Rosenberg, whose name I bear, fled Tsarist
Russia with his parents in 1886.   Twenty years later, he opened the first
cinema in Annapolis, on the second floor of the family clothing store near
the City docks.

    In 1983, I came to Annapolis with my parents and brothers to be sworn in
as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates.  Wednesday, I began my 19th
year as a legislator, still extraordinarily fulfilled by making public
policy. 

    And on the tour of Historic Jewish Annapolis, the guide relates that the
grandson of the man who opened that theatre now serves in the legislature. 

    This past summer, many of you told me you enjoyed reading my daily diary
from the Democratic Convention.  I enjoyed writing it.  So I'll be doing a
weekly diary