Rosenberg's 2002 Annapolis Diary

Delegate Sandy Rosenberg's 2002 Session Annapolis Diary

Week 1	Week 2	Week 3	Week 4	Week 5
Week 6	Week 7	Week 8	Week 9	Week 10
Week 11	Week 12	Week 13	Week 14	Week 15

Wednesday, April 3

$70 million + $400 million < $1.3 billion.

$70 million is the revenue generated by a 34-cent increase in the cigarette tax. $400 million could flow to the State Treasury if we legalize slot machines next year. $1.3 billion is the additional annual cost - five years from now, of the education spending plan just enacted by the Senate.

The state constitution mandates a "thorough and efficient" public school system. However, the disparity in revenue that can be generated by the property tax leaves the poorer counties, Baltimore City most notably, unable to adequately fund education for their children, whose needs are greater than those in wealthier jurisdictions.

That's where the State steps in, by providing school aid that's based on the wealth (or lack thereof) of each county, as well as the special needs of its children. The Thornton Commission has recommended a $1 billion+ increase in state aid. With a $200 million sweetener thrown in to secure votes from Montgomery County, that's what the Senate has adopted. The 34 cent increase in the cigarette tax has also passed the Senate. Slot machines won't be coming down the legislative stretch until next year at the earliest.

Thus, the $1.3 Billion Question: how (and when) do we find the additional revenue to fund this necessary commitment to our children's education? Do we enact the Thornton formula and find the money in future years? Alternatively, do we pass and fund a limited version and address the larger issue in our next term?

That's the major issue as we approach adjournment on Monday.

Most things don't happen in a hurry in Annapolis. It's the exception, for example, when a bill passes the first time it's introduced. So I was pleasantly surprised to learn this morning that my simple inquiry about the exclusion of religious structures from the historic tax credit yesterday afternoon had prompted the Budget and Taxation Committee to remove that language from the bill yesterday evening.

The Legislature works in mysterious ways.

Thursday, April 4

"Every now and then there's a slight price to be paid for being in the majority. It is only the majority that has the responsibility to govern. The minority doesn't have to be accountable and make the tough decisions."

The subject was the education spending bill. Speaker Taylor was exhorting a group of Democratic delegates before we voted on this legislation. The bill was soon to be before the full House because the Speaker had devised a solution to the $1.3 Billion Question.

Twice within the last twenty years, the General Assembly has enacted a significant change in the funding formula for state aid to local education. How had we dealt with finding the money for these expenditure increases? The Speaker had posed that question yesterday. Today he had his answer. We had made the funding increase contingent upon the money being there to pay for it.

The first year that the 34-cent cigarette tax increase will be insufficient to pay for the phase-in of the new formula is 2004. The Speaker drafted an amendment requiring that the 2004 General Assembly adopt a joint resolution affirming that "the additional state aid for education is within the State's fiscal resources."

Enactment of this bill should make how to raise the money to pay for it a major issue in the next election. Beware those who say slots alone will fill the gap.

During today's floor debate, one of my colleagues said, "This bill is 92 pages, about the same length as Animal Farm." I stage whispered in response, "When it comes to school funding, some jurisdictions are more equal than others."

Friday, April 5

The debate now moves to the campaign trail.

With the passage of the education spending bill, how to pay for it should be a major issue for the gubernatorial candidates, as well as those of us running for the legislature. I say "should" because it's not easy to count to $1.3 billion, the increase now written into law for five years from now. Consequently, most candidates will try to fudge the numbers.

For example, on the House floor today, the Republican whip said he was for the bill before it was amended to provide the $200 million sweetener which secured Montgomery County's support. I rose to ask him how he would have paid for a $1.1 billion program, but the Speaker recognized someone else, who moved the previous question, ending the debate.

This summer or fall, if a candidate says the cigarette tax and slots will do it, tell him or her to do the math.

$70 million + $400 million < $1.3 billion

And you can't make up the difference by getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse. The most likely options are:

1. Extend the sales tax to services that are currently exempt (The sales tax is largely based on the manufacturing economy of old, not the service economy of today.); or

2. Reduce or eliminate existing services or programs of state government.

Saturday, April 6

"Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan, said President Kennedy, assuming the blame for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The passage of the school funding bill has a thousand fathers; people will not be clamoring for credit when we adopt the measures to raise the revenue to pay for it.

My State Senator, Barbara Hoffman, has justifiably called this "the most significant thing I have ever done in my career" in Annapolis. She served on the Thornton Commission and chairs the committee that sent the bill to the Senate floor.

Eyebrows were raised, however, when the Washington Post ran two articles giving inordinate credit to two House members from Montgomery County for their role in getting the bill through the House. The stories made no mention of the Speaker's amendment to the bill, requiring an affirmative vote by the General Assembly two years from now, that money was available to fund K-12 education at the enhanced level in the bill. In my view, that's what broke the impasse between the House and Senate on this issue.

Later in the day, a tv reporter asked me if I wanted to be interviewed on camera about the bill. I declined, telling him that he should speak to my chairman instead because he had played a prominent role on the issue, which I had not.

Those of us who seek publicity they don't deserve may get their face on the air or their name in the paper, but they're not highly regarded by their colleagues.

Monday, April 8

The ninetieth and final day.

This session, I have far fewer bills that have been enacted, compared to last year. In part, that's because several of my bills raised issues for the first time - stem cell research and restoring civil rights protections for state employees, most notably. The norm in Annapolis is that a controversial idea takes at least two sessions to be approved.

I've spent a fair amount of time second guessing myself as to what I could/should have done to get more of my bills passed. But I've been reminded that every legislator, lobbyist or advocate does that after they've lost a bill.

So today I feel a sense of accomplishment. I'm finishing my 20th year as a legislator, and I'm ready to get going on my agenda for next year - for now, the bills that didn't pass this year, and my reelection campaign.

I've enjoyed our virtual conversation these past 90 days and look forward to continuing it in the months ahead.

Wednesday, March 27

This session, I've proposed several different ways to reduce unintended pregnancies among unwed teen mothers. Although I haven't succeeded, this will remain a priority for me.

1. Increase funding for family planning, counseling of younger teens to delay their child bearing, and an abstinence media campaign. I would have done this with money from the dedicated account for welfare reform, which had $82 million when I first suggested this. However, the state budget is balanced, in part, by removing all but $11 million from the fund. We aren't going to deplete it further.

2. Give welfare recipients who have another child priority for family planning or abstinence counseling. This would have replaced the existing child-specific benefit: the monthly increase of $128 for a new child goes to a third party instead of the mother, to be spent on clothing and other items for the newborn. I got my chairman's OK to amend our welfare law in this manner. Then I gave each of the members of my subcommittee a copy of the language that would accomplish this. I asked them to get back to me if they had any problems. One did, but she's a Republican and pro-life. I wasn't surprised that she would oppose the family planning option, despite the fact that I gave the same priority to abstinence counseling. I still figured that I could pass my proposal on a party-line vote, 4-2, but I forgot that one of my Democrats is pro-life. She wanted these mothers to be given priority for neonatal care, which is what the Catholic Conference's lobbyist had been proposing. Since we were deadlocked, 3-3, we agreed to eliminate the child-specific benefit and stopped there.

3. Give people who have had a Medicaid-funded abortion priority for family planning or abstinence counseling. Same principle as #2. When no amendment was offered on the House floor, there was no need to offer this alternative.

This is nothing new for me. Sixteen years ago, I worked with another pro-choice legislator and two pro-life legislators in successfully urging Governor Hughes to increase funding for family planning and to initiate a media campaign encouraging abstinence, as well as state support for Family Support Centers, where teen mothers are taught how to raise their child and encouraged to delay another pregnancy until they are married.

My motivation this time has been the social conservatives' effort, now supported by President Bush, to amend the federal welfare law to spend money to promote and encourage marriage more aggressively among low-income people.

Marriage is, of course, one way to reduce the number of children born to single mothers. It is not the only way. Family planning and abstinence serve that purpose as well.

Saturday, March 30

In the conference committee on the operating budget, you only have to be able to count to one (sometimes more than once), but you still have to meet the smell test after you leave the room.

As a House conferee, I need to get at least one of the senators to agree to our position. Adopting sound public policy meets the smell test - in most circumstances. (Less elegantly put, do you want people to read about what you did in the newspaper the next day?) There's one additional part to the smell test when it comes to the budget: we aren't supposed to legislate policy. That's up to the other committees.

What follows is how I tried to count to one and to meet the smell test on two issues with a significant impact on Baltimore City: privatization of child support enforcement and lead poisoning prevention.

From the outset of the session, the prospect of a gubernatorial veto has influenced our actions on the child support bill. The Senate amended the Welfare Innovation Act of 2002 to include the provisions of the privatization bill. The thinking was that the Governor wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water - lose the reform provisions of the welfare bill by vetoing it because it now contained the privatization language. But that's a vain hope because there's nothing in the Welfare Innovation Act that couldn't wait til next year, if this year's bill is vetoed.

In the House, we passed the privatization bill standing alone, choosing not to amend it onto another piece of legislation. What we did do was add language to the budget bill, requiring that $11.2 million in the Child Support Enforcement Administration budget could be spent only on a privatization contract for Baltimore City.

The Governor has extraordinary budget powers, but he can't veto the final version of the bill. If our language survives the conference committee, privatization would continue through June 30, 2003, the end of the fiscal year. In this instance, we weren't legislating policy, I contended to the Senate conferees, because both houses had passed a bill that would have continued privatization for at least three years. That met the smell test for one of the senators, who had voted for the privatization bill, and this provision was adopted.

Before the landlords succeeded in killing the lead paint legislation, my subcommittee had amended the budget bill to require that lead abatement money be given to Baltimore City in a block grant. The City's Health Commissioner had urged me to do this because he felt it would get houses abated quicker. After the bill died, I resolved to use this budget amendment to create, in effect, a one-year pilot program for modified versions of some of the bill's provisions.

The legislation would have required that properties meet the federal lead dust test. I amended the block grant language to require that all properties owned by an applicant for these dollars meet that federal standard, unless the property owner is taking appropriate steps to ensure compliance. If you get the carrot of a state grant, it's reasonable to require you to stick to the higher federal standard of care in all your properties. Should this requirement impede the use of these funds, it can be waived.

Under existing law, a tenant receives a relocation grant for expenses necessitated by moving her household to lead-safe rental housing. The bill would have allowed the use of these funds for down payments and closing costs on the purchase of a lead-safe house. As I modified the block grant provision, priority for abatement dollars would be given to current or prospective homeowners whose annual family income is between 80% of the State's median.

Late today, the chair of the Senate's capital budget subcommittee concurred in this block grant language. It must still be formally OK'd by the conference committee when we reconvene Sunday at 8 pm.

Sunday, March 31

As we were waiting for the conference committee to resume meeting (Nothing ever starts on time in Annapolis.), I was told that one of the House members was objecting to the lead dust provision, complaining that it was legislating in the budget. I tried to convince the two budget committee chairs that the proposed language was substantively different from that in the bill but to no avail. The provision came out.

The priority for low-income homeowners stayed in, as did establishing a preference for owners of fewer than five properties and a requirement that an owner must eliminate health and safety violations in all of his rental units. By the end of the evening, I was already thinking about trying to convince the next Governor to support a lead dust requirement, by statute or regulation.

Monday, April 1

Entitlements vs. Empowerment.

The issue is welfare reform. From the New Deal until 1996, a low-income, single mother with children was entitled to a monthly welfare check. That ended when the Congress passed an overhaul of the program six years ago.

My guiding principle in welfare reform has been to empower people - give them the opportunity to move from dependency to self sufficiency but with a consequence if they fail to do so. However, entitlements remain the focus for many of the advocates for the poor in Annapolis.

It's not an either/or proposition. You can increase the cash grant for families, but you should also provide incentives for people to enhance their skills so that they can earn a higher wage.

With the state's fiscal situation, this figured to be a session where we could declare victory if we tread water on welfare reform - no new initiatives, just maintain the status quo. Today, we ensured that we'd do a little better.

Maryland's Welfare Innovation Act of 1996 provides that the value of the monthly grant, when combined with food stamps, should equal 61% of the State minimum living level. The Governor's budget did not include the funds necessary to do this. (The monthly payment for a family of three is now $472; an increase of $18.88 would get us to the 61% mark.)

In a normal budget year, we would have resigned ourselves to doing nothing about this. As I've written before, only the Governor can put money in the budget, unless the legislature enacts a new revenue source (unspun: we raise a tax) or transfers money from a special fund to the general fund for the operating budget.

In a normal legislative year, we don't do either of those. This year, we're doing it in abundance. Consequently, the advocates proposed that we fund an increase to the 61% level. I asked my subcommittee to do so, figuring that we could do so with one of the many fund transfers the Governor had proposed to balance his budget. The full Appropriations Committee decided to do this with money from the Joseph Fund, which was designed to "meet the emergency needs of economically disadvantaged citizens of the State, especially in times of economic downturn."

Today, the conference committee on the bill that authorizes the various special fund transfers to the general fund approved this transfer from the Joseph Fund.

Tuesday, April 2

"In baseball, you don't run out of time," advises Earl Weaver, "you run out of outs." In a 90-day session of the General Assembly, however, you do run out of time and then have to wait �til next year to get your bill passed. (Since I couldn't go to the Orioles Opening Day win yesterday, I'm entitled to a baseball reference today.)

Consequently, with less than a week to go before we adjourn, whenever some one gets an opportunity to lobby you, they take it. I became very aware of that as I stood outside the Senate Finance Committee for an hour, waiting for the hearing on my bill to mandate insurance coverage for residential crisis centers for the mentally ill. Among the topics I discussed with various and sundry lobbyists:

Does it violate the First Amendment if the historic tax credit bill says a structure that is used primarily for religious purposes is ineligible for the credit? If the credit could be used for a portion of the building, consistent with the separation of church and state, does it discriminate against religious groups to deny them the credit?

Can the budget conferees be persuaded to alter a certain health care proposal to make it eligible for a 100% match from the federal Medicaid program, which doubles our money?

"When I go to the Naval Academy to swim before dinner," I finally said, "nobody lobbies me about legislation. They just salute and call me, �Sir.'"

And that's where I'm headed very shortly, I hope. I'm still waiting for my bill to be heard in the Finance Committee.

Monday, March 25

Extended floor debate on a bill is a rarity in the House of Delegates. "Extended," in this instance, is not a euphemism for a filibuster; it means longer than five minutes.

Members generally defer to the committee that held a hearing on the bill, listened to witnesses, and often forged a compromise by amending the legislation. Even more so if we respect the work product of the committee.

(I first learned of this phenomenon when writing my undergraduate thesis on Richard Nixon’s welfare reform plan. This legislation was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, then chaired by Wilbur Mills (pre-Fannie Fox) and well regarded by moderate members of the House of Representatives. That was not the case for the Education and Labor Committee, chaired by Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. I demonstrated this by feeding punch cards into the college’s mainframe computer with members’ votes on social welfare bills that had been reported out of these two committees.)

In Annapolis, amendments are offered on a fair number of bills on second reader. However, most bills pass third reader and are sent to the Senate with no debate; on a few, one or two people will stand up and speak. Today, we had extended debate on two bills. Who spoke and who voted which way was as interesting as what was said.

The first was the Maryland Security Protection Act of 2002, our response to the events of September 11. The second was the Darell Putnam Compassionate Use Act, which would allow individuals with certain illnesses to use marijuana to alleviate their pain. Both bills passed, the security bill, 78-60, and the medical marijuana bill, 80-56.

However, unlike the abortion funding issue, where the Republicans vote as a virtual bloc, they were evenly split on these two measures. The count was 19-16 in favor of the security bill. Those opposed were concerned about government intrusion into individuals’ privacy, not a concern they have when the question is reproductive decision-making. On the marijuana bill, 18 voted no and 17 yes. Two Republicans spoke of their personal experiences with cancer; the sponsor himself is a Republican and is motivated, in part, by watching his father die from cancer.

Tuesday, March 26

Once again, some good news and some not so good news on various bills I’ve introduced.

Lead Paint: The bill is dead, thanks to the landlords’ Chicken Little lobbying tactics (Their usual lament of "We’ll be put of business if these changes are enacted.") and Mayor O’Malley’s decision not to support any of the provisions of the legislation. However, I still have the opportunity to shape the block granting of the abatement money when the budget conference committee meets.

Medicaid-funded Abortions: This morning was the last chance for an amendment to be offered to the budget. As I walked up the steps of the State House, a friendly lobbyist informed me that no one was handing out leaflets urging people to vote for a restrictive amendment. Nonetheless, a certain had requested that an amendment be drafted, committee staff informed me a half hour later. But no amendment was offered. The dogma didn’t bark, as Sherlock Holmes would say.

DNA Evidence: Both the House and the Senate have passed legislation requiring that DNA evidence be retained for the length of time an individual is serving a sentence. There are differences, however, between the two bills, which must be reconciled.

Wednesday night is the first night of Passover. I volunteered to give the prayer when the House convenes Wednesday morning. I wanted to draw the connection between the Jews’ exodus from Egypt and the African-American civil rights movement. Unable to find an appropriate excerpt in Taylor Branch’s Parting the Waters, I e-mailed the author, who is a friend and constituent. Taylor suggested the following from his Pillar of Fire:

[Speaking at a 1963 ecumenical gathering, the Chicago Conference on Religion and Race, Rabbi Abraham] Heschel declared that the soul of Judaism was at stake and had been so ever since Moses contended with Pharaoh at the "first" summit meeting on religion and race. "The exodus began," he said, "but is far from having been completed. In fact it was easier for the children of Israel to cross the Red Sea than for a Negro to cross certain university campuses."

Monday, March 18

There are instances when I have to vote a certain way because I’m a member of the House leadership. Under the unwritten second reader rule, we support the work product of the committee that heard the bill and oppose amendments offered on the House floor. Not good for my voting record with the special interest groups that are often the source of these amendments.

This session, the deficit has forced me to support budget cuts or to oppose bills that would increase funding for worthy programs. So I got a special satisfaction when I proposed that we fund an increase in monthly welfare payments.

I must admit I was unaware that the budget did not include money for this purpose until I read a flyer circulated by the Maryland Alliance for the Poor: MAP URGES THE HOUSE TO IDENTIFY FUNDS TO ALLOW FOR THIS INCREASE.

In a normal budget year, that would be well nigh impossible. The legislature can only cut the budget. After we make that reduction, we can’t move a dime of that money to another program. This year, however, the budget is being balanced by moving funds from over two dozen special accounts into the general fund. We can stipulate that a portion of these funds be used for a specific purpose.

I didn’t want to proceed down this path and then be reversed by the full committee; so I asked Chairman Rawlings for his support. "You’re helping the poor," he said. "I’m for it."

I was subsequently reminded that state law requires that the monthly cash grant and Food Stamps equal 61% of the State’s minimum living level. We had mandated this when we began welfare reform in 1996.

We were right then and we’re right again now.

Tuesday, March 19

The witnesses who testified against my bill today helped it more than they hurt it.

House Bill 1171 would create a task force to study stem cell research. A group of experts would study the ethical dilemmas, scientific possibilities, and economic opportunities presented by this research. Any legislation introduced in a future General Assembly would be judged against the findings and recommendations of the task force. Bills seeking to impose greater restrictions on research would have to overcome a significant hurdle.

That’s what I said when I testified today. Curt Civin, a Johns Hopkins researcher and Amherst contemporary, testified beside me. We did a good job but nothing spectacular. (However, the chairman’s question as to why the task force would have researchers from only Hopkins and the University of Maryland was a good sign. If you’re going to kill the bill, you don’t ask why others aren’t included in it. (Perhaps, one person speculated, the chairman was thinking of adding someone from the DC suburbs, his home.)

Then the tide really began to turn in our favor. The first person to oppose the bill represented the pediatricians. "We already have a position on this issue," she said, "and the task force might adopt a different one." Let’s hear it for scientific inquiry!

"The composition of the task force is biased," asserted a lobbyist for the Catholic Conference."There’s no representative of a religious faith and the National Institute of Health [with one member on the Task Force] is overwhelmingly pro-abortion." "Would you support the bill if more people were added to the group?" one delegate asked her. No, she wouldn’t.

"The bill should also examine the use of adult stem cells," contended the Maryland Right to Life spokesman. "Plenty of people have benefitted from their use. No one has from embryonic stem cells." ("Of course not," I said to myself, "it’s still in the research phase. That’s why we need to study the issue.") Two committee members asked these two witnesses: "What’s the point of having a task force if you decide its outcome beforehand?"

Both pro-life advocates would have fared better today if they had leveled with the committee and said that they opposed the use of embryonic stem cells as a matter of faith. "Don’t be too cute when you’re pleading your case," I tell the students in my law school classes. "Be honest and direct. You’ll be received much better - even by people who disagree with you."

Wednesday, March 20

Today, I withdrew a bill because we could attain its objectives without enacting it.

My intent is to expedite abatement of the lead paint hazard in slum properties. My subcommittee required the State to block grant the money it provides to the City so that it could be spent more quickly. None of the current fiscal year’s appropriation of $2.6 million has been spent yet.

Until late yesterday afternoon, I thought we needed to pass a bill to authorize most of the changes that the block grant would bring about. Then I learned that the Attorney General’s Office believes that we can accomplish this through the budget bill, without amending the existing law for this program. So I withdrew the bill that was to be heard today.

There are two benefits to this:

1. There is now only one lead paint bill that the advocates and I are supporting in the Environmental Matters Committee. All of our efforts will now be focused on that one proposal, and the committee’s attention will also be directed at this bill alone. (This is the legislation that Mayor O’Malley has declined to support.)

2. When the block grant language is finalized, it will be in the conference committee on the budget bill. I will be the lead negotiator for the House, resolving this issue with my counterpart on the Senate budget committee. Borrowing from the Eddie Murphy sketch on Saturday Night Live, these discussions will take place in Mr. Rosenberg’s neighborhood, and Mr. Landlord will have less influence than he does elsewhere.

But nothing is easy. Late this afternoon, I learned that, upon further review, we need to change the existing law so that the money can be spent on code violations that are not lead-related. We’re already discussing which bill should be amended.

Thursday, March 21

Both good news and not so good news on several of my bills today:

Lead Paint Abatement: The Environmental Matters Committee chairman has assigned the bill to the subcommittee whose members are more favorably inclined to act favorably on it. The advocates and the City have reached agreement on which code compliance activities should be funded with lead abatement dollars. By 9am Friday, when the subcommittee meets to work on the bill, we expect a definitive ruling from the AG’s office as to whether the statute must be changed to do this.

Stem Cell Research: Despite our opponents’ worst efforts at the public hearing, the chairman told me he’s concerned that abortion-related amendments may be offered on the House floor if my bill receives a favorable report. He’s pro-choice but wants to avoid this controversy. So he agreed to my suggestion to send a letter requesting that the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study this matter over the summer.

Restoring State Employees’ Civil Rights: I pride myself on my ability to describe legal issues in a manner that is understandable to non-lawyers. This morning, those skills were challenged. I was trying to explain to my colleagues on the Personnel Subcommittee why we should pass my bill restoring the right of state employees to sue the state if it violates the provisions of several federal civil rights laws. This is necessary, I tried to explain, because a 5-4 Supreme Court has ruled that only a state can waive its sovereign immunity from lawsuit; the Congress cannot. There were some glazed looks in the room, but on a straw vote, a majority supported the legislation.

Abortion: The vote count looks good should a budget amendment be offered denying Medicaid funding for virtually all abortions if a woman has already had more than one such procedure. Should because none of the "swing" delegates whom we polled indicated that they had been lobbied by the pro-life forces. The other side may figure that losing in the Senate has doomed their chances to change the law this session. Nevertheless, we’re preparing for a floor fight.

Saturday, March 23

In my last diary entry, I said that the vote count looks good should a budget amendment be offered limiting Medicaid funding for abortions. Shortly after writing that, I got an e-mail from a pro-choice lobbyist stating that "Delegate David Brinkley will be offering the amendment(s). So it's a definite."

What was definite Thursday night had become unlikely Saturday afternoon. Word on the House floor was that no amendment will be offered on Tuesday because Republican members don't want an abortion vote the day after Congressman Bob Ehrlich announces his candidacy for governor. Why, in this instance, is all politics gubernatorial?

Ehrlich is trying to cast himself as a moderate by touting himself as pro-choice. This despite the fact that the National Abortion Rights Action League gives him scores of 45 and 36 for the votes he cast in 2000 and 2001. The four Democratic members from Maryland and Republican Connie Morella all got 100 ratings in both years.

The Republicans in the General Assembly are almost uniformly pro-life. When the Senate deadlocked, 22-22, on the amendment to deny state funding to women who have already had more than one abortion, all twelve GOP’ers present and voting supported this limitation. Our vote count in the House has only one or two Republicans indicating they’ll vote pro-choice. It would not be "on message" for all those Republican votes to be cast pro-life the day after their putative gubernatorial candidate labels himself pro-choice.

Despite the above, we’re still holding our Monday meeting to review our vote count. Our anti-choice friends may change their minds yet again.

Monday, March 11

The governor has urged individuals and interest groups that share his budget priorities - increases for higher education and smart growth, to lobby the General Assembly not to make cuts in these areas. What he doesn’t tell them is what programs he hasn’t adequately funded. So I added the following to the letter I’ll be sending to people who’ve written or e-mailed me.

The Governor has inadequately funded several important programs whose budgets are reviewed by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Resources, which I chair. The Medicaid program is our health insurance program for the poor and working poor. The projected deficit for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 is $236 million. The state-funded system of medical care for the mentally ill living in the community is underfunded by $70 million.

Welfare reform cannot be done on the cheap. For example, people need skills training to qualify for better paying jobs and day care subsidies for their children while they’re at work. Several years ago, we established a special account to support such programs. The Governor would virtually do away with this fund, removing all but $700,000 of the $82.4 million now in this account, in order to balance the budget. This severely diminishes our ability to provide these important services.

The money the Governor has allocated for the Rental Housing Production Program has fallen from $16.8 million in his first year in office to $12 million in the budget now before us. The demand for this program exceeds the allocation. The entire appropriation for the next fiscal year has already been reserved for specific projects.

Increasing spending for higher education and smart growth while shortchanging the programs described above is neither good policy nor sound budgeting.

Tuesday, March 12

The exhibition season is over. Tomorrow we start playing for keeps.

No, I’m not so excited about the upcoming baseball season that I’ve mistakenly pushed up the date for Opening Day three weeks. And with the Orioles’ prospects this year, not even I am looking forward to the start of the season like I normally do.

The exhibition season is over because after six weeks of budget hearings, tomorrow we start making decisions. Today we had a pre-meeting meeting so that the six of us on the subcommittee could have an uninhibited discussion, without bureaucrats, advocates, or the press present. No decisions were made, but we began focusing on the major fiscal and policy decisions we must make.

There are a handful of issues where I conveyed Chairman Rawlings’ "suggestions" as to what we should do. Other than that, we were on our own, within the constraints of the budget process. We can cut the Governor’s budget, but after we’ve cut the money from Program X, we can’t move it to Program Y. However, we can restrict how money is spent by attaching conditions to an appropriation.

I didn’t take any notes. I feel it distracts me from concentrating on what’s being said. I promise a fuller report after we make decisions at our public meetings over the next two days.

Wednesday, March 13

In Tuesday’s diary entry, I wrote that "we had a pre-meeting meeting so that the six of us on the subcommittee could have an uninhibited discussion, without bureaucrats, advocates, or the press present."

Today, the bureaucrats and advocates were present, but not the press - apparently nothing controversial or scandalous enough to attract their interest. The discussion was serious, if not quite as uninhibited as yesterday’s cloistered pre-meeting meeting.

Six delegates, four Democrats and two Republicans. Most, but not all, of our decisions were unanimous. In such a small group, there was virtually no partisanship.

If our deliberations had been shown on C-Span, I said to someone afterwards, the viewers would have thought better of the legislative process. But, he replied, if you were on tv, it would have been a different kind of meeting.

Enough patting myself and my subcommittee on the back, what did we do?

Our budget analyst had recommended a cut in the lead paint abatement money for Baltimore City. They’ve been too slow in spending the money they’ve already gotten, he reasoned.

"I’m convinced we need to block grant this money," City Health Commissioner Peter Beilenson e-mailed me. "Give it to us in one lump sum, instead of our drawing from several different pots of money to rehab a single house, and we’ll get houses abated quicker."

I then asked the budget analyst to draft language making $500,000 of this appropriation contingent upon the City and the state Housing Department entering into a memorandum of understanding that block granted all lead abatement funds. Nothing concentrates a bureaucrat’s mind like holding up his money.

This also demonstrates why it’s good to be the chairman. Our subcommittee’s OK of this budget language today virtually guarantees that it will be approved by the Appropriations Committee and then the full House of Delegates. Next and final step is to persuade my Senate counterpart to accept this provision when the conference committee resolves the differences between the two houses on the budget.

On the way to batting 1.000 - to succeeding at every step along the way to enactment, there are fewer steps and players than if I tried to pass a bill making this change.

Addressing the deficit in our public mental health system was another significant policy action we took today. The Senate had directed the Health Department to live within the means of its budget. That would mean a $20 million reduction in services. I agreed on the need to do that, but felt we should do more. Inadequate funding by the current Governor shouldn’t shortchange the quantity and quality of care for the future.

After much discussion of how best to do so, we also required the Department to prepare a prioritized list of service expansions, rate increases, and service coverage expansions that the Governor and General Assembly should consider for next year’s budget.

Thursday, March 14

Two weeks ago, you may recall, I persuaded an "important player" that taking no position on a bill to reduce the risk of lead poisoning was not a neutral act but a benefit to the landlords who opposed the bill. As a result, he asked me to find out which provisions of the legislation would be helped the most by his support. The bill would, among other things, make tests for lead dust mandatory, instead of optional, and consistent with federal guidelines.

That "important player" was Mayor O’Malley. Today, he reneged on that commitment.

"I cannot affirmatively support measures that would more harshly regulate rental property owners in the name of lead paint abatement in the same year that the State is cutting its funding for lead paint abatement," the Mayor wrote me.

In response to the budget analyst’s recommendation that there be a $2 million cut in the lead paint abatement money for Baltimore City, the Senate deleted $1 million. It also stated its intent that this $1 million be made available to the City if efficiencies were made in the program. I can’t recall the last time a subcommittee made a cut and immediately turned around to offer the money back like this.

Yesterday, my subcommittee concurred in this Senate action. At the City Health Commissioner’s request, we also prodded the City and State to block grant this money so that it could be spent more expeditiously.

Not the kind of action that justifies the Mayor’s change of position. So I told my subcommittee of these events and asked them to cut an additional $250,000 of this money, also coupling it with our expression of intent to undo the reduction.

In Annapolis, this is how we deliver a message: Support certain provisions of the bill, Mr. Mayor, and we’ll rescind the $250,000 cut.

Friday, March 15

A prohibition on state-funded abortions for women who have already had more than one such abortion almost passed the Senate today. It failed on a 22-22 vote.

When the issue is framed as a woman's right to make the very personal and difficult decision about whether to bear and raise a child, free from government interference, the public supports a woman’s right to choose - by a wide margin. That’s why 62% of the voters approved Question 6, the legislation writing into state law the holding of Roe v. Wade.

When the issue is framed as "abortion on demand," the pro-choice numbers fall. That’s the case with public funding of repeat abortions for poor women. Same for so-called "partial birth" abortions.

President Clinton said that our goal should be to make abortions both safe and rare. That's sound policy and sound politics.

I think counseling about family planning or abstinence should be provided to a woman after she has had a Medicaid-funded abortion, consistent w privacy concerns and standard medical practice. And that's regardless of the vote count we’ll take in the House of Delegates this week, in anticipation of the same amendment being offered when the House considers the budget.

When that happens could make a difference. In 1991, a final vote on the pro-choice bill that eventually became Question 6 was being held on a Monday. Delegates were flooded with phone calls after church goers were urged to make those calls from the pulpit the day before. It may not have switched any votes, but it did make some members very nervous.

Monday, March 4

The Catholic Review article about tonight's March for Life Rally stated that "placing restrictions on the issue of state tax dollars to fund repeat abortions" was one of the pro-life issues this election year. I shared this intelligence with both a group of pro-choice advocates and a pro-life member of the House leadership. The former so that we could prepare for a possible floor fight over this issue, the latter because he has an interest in the "trains running on time" and keeping controversial issues like this off the floor.

Potentially unfavorable news on the redistricting front: The Maryland Court of Appeals has decided to hold a preliminary hearing on the validity of the plan, specifically as it relates to the requirement in the state constitution that each General Assembly district must give "due regard" to the boundaries of political subdivisions.

Ten years ago, when my district first crossed the line between Baltimore City and Baltimore County, the court upheld that arrangement. However, the two judges who dissented from that decision are the only two who remain on the seven-member court today.

In my first semester of law school, I learned about stare decisis, the legal principle whereby courts don’t reverse themselves on matters they’ve already decided. However, in my constitutional litigation seminar, Telford Taylor taught me that when arguing before a higher court, in addition to basing your argument on the applicable legal principles, you have to be able to count to a majority. On the Court of Appeals, that’s four.

Tuesday, March 5

The child support enforcement bill I’ve previously written about was debated by the full House today. It continues privatization in two jurisdictions, Baltimore City and Queen Anne’s County, and extends flexibility in personnel practices from six counties to all of the remaining jurisdictions in the state. Since I chair the subcommittee that reviewed the legislation, I’m the floor leader, who responds to questions raised by opponents.

With all due immodesty, engaging in the thrust and parry of this kind of exchange is one of my strengths. Particularly so in this instance, where I fully understand and fully support what the bill does. There have been and will be occasions when it’s my responsibility to defend committee action where I may differ to some degree with the end product.

The big news of the day, however, was Senator Chris Van Hollen’s resignation as chair of his budget subcommittee. Chris feels that we should raise revenue by increasing the cigarette tax and delaying the final phase of the income tax cut. That would reduce the need to make some of the cuts in health care spending that his committee is obligated to make to balance the budget.

The complicating factor for Chris, whom I highly regard, is that he’s running for Congress. Cuts in spending for mental health and Medicaid spending will be difficult to defend on the campaign trail. I feel, however, that the best politics is to do the job right. Make the hard decisions and the public will support you if they feel that you put a lot of thought into that decision. However, that’s easier to accomplish in the retail politics of a campaign for the House of Delegates than it is in the wholesale politics of a Congressional race dominated by tv ads.

Wednesday, March 6

The bill hearing had been droning on for nearly two hours. Then I heard a witness speak of her interest in pursuing a public interest career, despite being saddled with almost $100,000 in debt. "After I get my dual degree from the Schools of Law and Social Work," said Hilary Heslep, "my parents want me to be a tax lawyer so that I can pay my bills."

I asked her if she knew that she could get state money to assist in paying off part of that debt under the Janet L. Hoffman Loan Assistance Repayment Program. Yes, she did. I introduced the bill that created this program to help people like Hilary Heslep. It doesn’t level the playing field; she would still make a lot more as a tax lawyer. But it does make it possible for her to fulfill her career goal of representing children through a public service agency. It was the highlight of my day.

Thursday, March 7

"The last time I was in a state building," said the witness, "I was in a hospital - with schizophrenia."

The witness was speaking at the four-hour long budget hearing for the Mental Hygiene Administration (MHA). "My family doesn’t believe in mental illness," she continued. "They’re not very supportive."

As a group, the mentally ill are stepchildren of the legislative process in Annapolis. Funding for the developmentally disabled and substance abusers has significantly increased recently, but our staff analyst projects a $70 million deficit in the MHA budget.

Several years ago, I urged the advocates for the developmentally disabled and the mentally ill to work together. Trying to grow the pie is far preferable to fighting over the same small pieces of the pie. These groups have joined together on certain issues and call themselves "Sandy’s Kids."

Nonetheless, the developmentally disabled continue to fare better. Yesterday, I testified in support of my bill to require a cost-of-living increase for workers providing care for the mentally ill in a community setting. Last year, we enacted such a law for people caring for the developmentally disabled. Funding for substance abusers has risen because the devastating impact of drugs on Baltimore City has convinced us treatment is preferable to jailing users.

Both this year and last, greater attention has been paid to the unmet needs of the mentally ill living in the community. I am hopeful that this effort will, in the long run, result in adequate funding.

Friday. March 8

Slightly differing versions of the child support privatization bill passed the House and the Senate this morning. Each house must adopt an identical version of a bill, down to the last comma, for it to be sent to the Governor’s desk for his signature, or in this instance, an expected veto.

The vote in the House on HB 495 was 84-43; the Senate tally on SB 178 was 34-8. "The Senate has the 2/3 vote needed to override a veto," I told Chairman Rawlings while we were still on the House floor, "but we’re ten short of the 94 we need in the House."

A short time later, I went back to the committee offices. Our staff shared with me their post-vote discussion and discovery. They too had thought that 2/3 was needed to override a veto, but as Casey Stengel once advised, you can look it up. They did. The Maryland Constitution requires a 3/5 majority to override a veto, not the 2/3 needed in the United States Congress. I must still have Potomac Fever, despite my protestations to the contrary.

Thus far this session, the $178 million question has been: Are you willing to vote for a delay in the income tax cut before facing the voters this November? An increase in the cigarette tax is a $96 million question.

All next week, the Appropriations subcommittees will be making cuts in the Governor’s budget. Next Saturday, the full committee will consider those reductions before sending a balanced budget to the full House floor.

The $170 million and $96 million questions will be different at that point: Are you willing to vote for funding for K-12 education, preserving open space, or additional drug treatment by also voting for a delay in the income tax cut or an increase in the cigarette tax?

It’s easier to cut the budget in the abstract than it is to reduce specific programs. Next week, we’ll find out how much easier it is.

Post Scriptum

My comments about Chris Van Hollen’s decision to resign his subcommittee chairmanship because he disagreed with the cuts being made to the budget generated more response than anything else I’ve written about these last two legislative sessions.

I wrote about doing the job right and making the hard decisions. And very reasonable people differed with me about whether ruling out a tax-cut delay or a revenue increase is the right decision. Moreover, my diary entry for Friday notes that voting to raise taxes can be cast in a different light when it spares specific programs from reductions.

The point I failed to make last week is that resigning from a position of importance in the legislature leaves you with less ability to impact the decisions that are ultimately made. A matter of high moral principle justifies such an act, but I don’t think the proposed budget cuts meet that standard.

Below are the comments several of you sent me.

1. You make the point that elected officials should do the right thing and make the difficult decisions regardless of whether an election is looming. Who can argue? But are not so many of our legislators guilty of the very behavior you describe in fearing a backlash over the income tax reduction? If you'll tolerate my opinion, many of you in the Legislature vastly overestimate the public's expectations of tax relief.

What the public wants---and I believe there are data and polls to prove it---- is RESPONSIBLE spending from government. They want that much more than they want LESS spending. And I am seeing precious little courage to execute on that premise because of this misperceived fear of the public at the ballot box.

2. I was interested in your characterization of Chris Van Hollen's decision in a way that suggests that at least part of his motivation is related to his decision to be a candidate for Congress. I certainly don't know Mr. Von Hollen as well as you do, but I'm not sure how that characterization squares with the obvious downside of being seen as someone who might vote to raise taxes to provide needed services.

On the note of hard decisions--How hard a decision is it to avoid suggesting raising taxes in an election year? Do Mike Miller and Casper Taylor call all the shots in Annapolis? How hard a decision is it to vote for a 5% increase in pay for legislators and "governors" in a year when constituents are being reemed on the grounds that it is better for the raise to be decided prior to the election? I think you and I have a very different idea of the meaning of a hard decision.

3. I happen to agree with Chris Van Hollen. It happens over and over again. The General Assembly adopts a policy, such as not delaying or rescinding the tax cut, and then every thing has to adhere to that policy even though I think it is wrong. There is not doubt that the Congressional race may be what is prompting Chris Van Hollen but it seems ludicrous to me that all sorts of worthwhile things have to be eliminated or reduced, but not the tax cut.

4. The real problem is the leadership decision not to take back the tax cut. I am sure that this comes from a feeling that this is a killer issue in close districts for the Dems and might result in a non-filibuster proof Senate. I understand this but I think it would be easy to balance the $75 tax/person give back vs. the zillions of dollars you all will have to cut from mental health, children, higher ed and whatever other popular program you might want to name to excuse the reason for not returning that paltry tax rebate.

A skillful political PR person can help frame the case so Dems in those vulnerable districts can come out looking like they took the high road and did the right thing. I'm not sure of the real reason why Chris did what he did but to me he appears to have taken the high road; it may also be the one that works politically for him.

5. Add my lonely voice to those who believe - and I hold my nose - along with Parris and Chris Van Hollen that the tax cut should be delayed. What’s the point of giving a $75 tax cut this year when you'll take $150 next year with a sales tax increase, and, with that, probably an increase in the gas tax.

The problem is that Parris didn't have the stones to look the public square in the eye in his State of the State message and explain the problem. He just dumped it in your laps.

Same for the legislators, of both parties, who have made requests to the Governor, totaling more than $1 billion, for funding in his Supplemental Budget. I’m one of those petitioners - my family planning and abstinence letter of three days ago.

I also helped make the case for not transferring all but $700,000 of the $80 million in the Dedicated Purpose Account for Welfare Reform, as the Governor proposes. I wrote Ben Cardin to ask how the Congress would react. His response, which was distributed at today’s hearing, says that using this money for programs that have no relation to welfare reform "hinders those of us in Congress who strongly support providing the States with continued full funding" for their welfare programs.

Ultimately, on March 15 to be precise, those of us on the Appropriations committee must balance the budget by cutting other programs or finding revenue for every proposal of the Governor’s that we reject.

Monday, February 25

The prosecutor’s subpoena power is an awesome one. With a court’s approval, an individual is required to turn over masses of documents to the government.

The books that an individual has purchased should not be subject to a subpoena, except in special circumstances. What a person reads is protected by the right to privacy, I argued to three members of the State Police, who were meeting with me this afternoon to discuss their opposition to the bill I’ve introduced on this issue. We agreed to disagree at tomorrow’s bill hearing but to meet again this summer to see if we could draft a compromise bill for next year.

Ironically, as this meeting ended, it dawned on me that I’d be taking a different view of the subpoena power at my next appointment. I’m the House chair of the Joint Audit Committee. Our auditors felt that they had uncovered criminal activity in the billing of construction work at one of the state’s mental hospitals. They turned the matter over to the Attorney General, but that office must obtain the Governor’s approval before issuing a subpoena. My bill would give discretion to the AG alone as to whether a subpoena was warranted to further a criminal investigation.

Ironic but not inconsistent. The Attorney General should have the same powers as all other law enforcement officers (meeting #2), but that power should not be exercised in a way that violates

someone’s constitutional rights (meeting #1).

My bill to restore the right of state workers to sue their employer was the subject of my next meeting. This legislation was necessitated by a series of Supreme Court decisions holding that Congress could not extend the protections of certain civil rights laws to these workers. A conservative 5-4 majority has ruled that the Congress cannot waive a state’s sovereign immunity to being sued; only the state itself can do this. My bill would do just that.

We were meeting with Delegate Wheeler Baker, chairman of the Personnel subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, where this bill will be heard this Friday. "Watching the Rosa Parks story on tv last night," he said, "puts this bill in a different perspective."

Tuesday, February 26

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It also makes for different partners on different occasions. Your ally on one issue may be your opponent on another.

Yesterday, I was working with the lobbyist for AFSCME, the state employees’ union, on my bill to give these workers the right to sue the state for discrimination on the job. In fact, I asked the lobbyist to contact Kweise Mfume, head of the NAACP, to ask him to endorse our bill as an important civil rights measure.

Today, I was working against AFSCME, as my subcommittee voted favorably on the bill authorizing the privatization of the collection of child support payments in Baltimore City and one other county. Since this legislation reduces the number of state employees, AFSCME opposes it. So does the Governor, who is very responsive to the union on most issues.

We first authorized having a private company run the collection system six years ago. I had that bill amended to exempt one county’s child support system from the personnel and procurement laws. As a liberal, I believe we need to make government work better if we are to retain taxpayers’ support for government programs. Monetary incentives for state employees and flexibility for their supervisors would result in better performance, I reasoned. And it has.

Three years ago, we amended the law to give six counties this flexibility. Today, I proposed that we grant this exemption to all of the state’s 24 counties, except the two that are privatized. A reasonable compromise in most circumstances, but here the threat looms of a veto by the Governor.

So part of our strategy will be to amend the privatization bill onto another bill that the Governor cares too much about to veto. The Senate Finance Committee made the Welfare Innovation Act of 2002 such a vehicle. There may be several other legislative vehicles with the privatization accessory before the session ends.

Wednesday, February 27

Eureka!

I’ve written in this diary on several occasions about my efforts to find a way to reduce teen pregnancy through family planning or abstinence. But we don’t enact concepts. You need specific language for a bill, which I didn’t have - until late this afternoon.

State law already requires that welfare recipients be referred, as appropriate, to family planning counseling and services, as long as they are not "offered or conducted in a manner that is coercive or will violate the recipient’s bona fide religious beliefs and practices or confidentiality."

Several days ago, I asked the state Secretary of Health to find out if this law was being carried out effectively. Before today’s budget hearing, the Secretary informed me that the local health officers present today had told him that was the case. When these officials testified to that effect before the subcommittee, the light went on in my head.

We could amend the existing law to give priority to welfare recipients who have another child while receiving assistance. Funding for family planning in the state budget is insufficient to provide these services for all who meet the income guidelines. Establishing this priority would ensure that welfare recipients are first in line. I would also allow referrals to abstinence programs.

This would replace the child specific benefit I’ve written about before. ($128 for an additional child goes to a third party every month, instead of the mother, to be spent on clothing and other items for the child.)

Reinforcement of my bright idea came a few hours later from the budget analyst whom I had also asked about the existing requirement to refer people to family planning. The process could be improved, she wrote, by standardizing the family planning discussion and making it an integral, routine part of the assessment process in each of the state’s 24 counties.

The morning after: More reinforcement in the form of a bill to spend $100 million on programs that teach both abstinence and contraception has been introduced in the Congress, according to Thursday’s New York Times.

Thursday, February 28

"Son, nobody bats 1.000 in this league."

No, that’s not what Earl Weaver told me when I was hitless at Fantasy Camp. It’s what I said to my legislative aide this morning, as I informed him of the first unfavorable reports on any of my bills this session.

My bill to broaden eligibility for unemployment insurance to individuals in job training or education programs fell victim to its original fiscal note of $35 million. The cost to the UI fund of our heavily amended bill was now negligible, by the estimate of the fund’s administrators. Nonetheless, all UI bills were killed, except the one that extended coverage to victims of domestic violence.

My bill raising certain payments to businesses forced to relocate by government condemnation was also retired. However, the committee chairman will probably send a letter to the Transportation Secretary, asking him to conduct a review of the State’s relocation assistance program. That would be progress.

Every interest group that doesn’t want to see its special fund depleted or its mandated program reduced will be opposing it. Like the Republicans who oppose any attempt to raise revenues, these advocates don’t have to say what other program they would cut if we save their funds.

Friday, March 1

I got my temperature taken today, but it wasn’t by a nurse. It was by my whip.

Normally, the whips do what their name implies - whip Democratic members into line on a bill that the House leadership is supporting. But in this instance, our views were being ascertained before, not after, the leadership had arrived at a position.

The issue was a 33-cent increase in the cigarette tax and whether the revenue should be dedicated to elementary and secondary education. Desperately seeking revenue, given the decision not to postpone the last phase of the income tax cut, raising this sin tax was now being given serious consideration.

"We’re just taking your temperature. We’re not whipping you," the Majority Leader told me.

"I support an increase in the cigarette tax," I responded. "But until I know what cuts are being made to the programs reviewed by my subcommittee - health, welfare, and housing, I’m not committing on how any new revenue should be spent."

In baseball, a tie goes to the runner. In Annapolis, where the burden is on the person trying to pass a bill, a tie, neutrality in this setting, benefits the defense - those trying to kill the bill.

I’m co-sponsoring a bill to reduce the risk of lead poisoning by, among other things, making tests for lead dust mandatory, instead of optional, and consistent with federal guidelines. Yesterday, I was told by a supporter of the bill that the Baltimore City landlords had convinced an important player on this issue to oppose the legislation.

The landlords’ contention: when major legislation was enacted on this issue in 1994, everyone agreed to a ten-year moratorium on any substantive changes. As the lead sponsor of that bill, I did not make such a commitment. Had I done so, I would have been indicted for legislative stupidity.

This morning, I learned that the important player did not oppose the bill; he was neutral. Late this afternoon, I persuaded him that his position still benefitted the landlords. "We need to convince people the law should be changed," I said. "Your silence would help kill the bill." He asked me to find out which provisions of the bill would most benefit from his support.

Finally, I’ve introduced legislation to give the Attorney General subpoena power when an audit by the General Assembly’s Auditor indicates it’s likely that a state employee or someone doing business with the state committed a crime. The hearing today went very well. "Congratulations," said the Assistant AG who had testified along with me. "Not until the bill gets a favorable report," I said. "It’s bad luck to say good luck on Opening Night." (My apologies to Mel Brooks and "The Producers.")

Friday, February 22

"75% of the people who have government-funded abortions are repeaters," my constituent had told me on the 18th annual Lobby Night of the Catholic Conference this past Monday. I considered that number outlandish and left it at that - until today.

I was reading the Catholic Review , which I do religiously every week. The article about Lobbying Night said that one pro-choice delegate had indicated her support for a limit on the number of repeat Medicaid-funded abortions while meeting with her Catholic constituents.

This was serious. I asked our budget analyst if such figures were available. He told me that since so many letters raising this concern had been written to legislators, the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene had prepared a response. "Analyses of the Medicaid abortion data from 1990-1995 showed that approximately 20% were for repeat abortions," wrote the Secretary.

The pro-choice response has to be more than reiterating that a woman has a right to choose - period. I always speak of a woman's right to make this very personal and difficult decision, about whether to bear and raise a child, with the people whom she chooses to consult.

Late this afternoon, I alerted several pro-choice lobbyists to the 20% figure. One responded that it’s difficult for women to receive birth control under Medicaid, because managed care organizations aren't particularly forthcoming or encouraging to their clients about this optional benefit. We’ll be strategizing about this between now and March 13, when the budget will be on the Senate floor and open to an amendment on this issue.

Monday, February 25

The prosecutor’s subpoena power is an awesome one. With a court’s approval, an individual is required to turn over masses of documents to the government.

Ironic but not inconsistent. The Attorney General should have the same powers as all other law enforcement officers (meeting #2), but that power should not be exercised in a way that violates someone’s constitutional rights (meeting #1).

Tuesday, February 26

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It also makes for different partners on different occasions. Your ally on one issue may be your opponent on another.

Wednesday, February 27

Eureka!

Thursday, February 28

"Son, nobody bats 1.000 in this league."

Friday, February 15

The party in power in Annapolis has to balance the budget. The party that isn't can criticize proposals to raise revenue or reduce spending on popular programs. Their numbers don't have to add up.

An example of that in the article in today's Sun about the Democratic leadership bill to generate $105 million in revenue by such measures as reducing commissions for lottery agents and retailers who collect sales taxes and not applying the new federal tax credit for college tuition to an individual's state tax return. The House minority whip states: "President Bush and Congress want Marylanders to pay lower taxes and a receive a break on college tuition, but Maryland Democrats don't want that."

No mention of the fact that Governor Jeb Bush, who must balance his budget, unlike his brother, the President, is raising taxes to balance his budget. If I were the minority whip, I wouldn't mention that either.

It's our responsibility as Democrats not only to balance the budget but to show the public that we're doing so in a responsible way. In addition, we must let people know that Maryland is in better fiscal shape than Florida and most other states. The reason: our Spending Affordability limits on the growth in state spending. In recent years, the General Assembly has trimmed the Governor's budgets substantially -- by an average of $144 million in each of the last four years.

Monday, February 18

President's Day for most people. Day 41 - almost the session's halfway point, for 188 legislators, staff, and other interested players. For me, the start of a week in which four of my bills will have committee hearings. Fiscal notes for three of the bills were the focus of my attention today.

In descending order of size, here they are.

Unemployment insurance is intended to provide laid-off workers with a bridge to their next job. Congress created this structure in 1935, but it is starting to show signs of age. House Bill 905 would broaden UI eligibility for individuals in job training or education programs relevant to a career in which there are job opportunities.

The fiscal note estimates that over 21,000 students would take advantage of our proposed change, at a cost of $35 million. A fiscal note of that magnitude is a killer in boom economic times. We're now looking at how other states have defined eligibility in this circumstance to see if we can draft
an amendment that would resuscitate the bill.

Eminent domain is the power of government to condemn an individual's property to remove blight or clear land for a highway or redevelopment project. Recent renewal efforts in Essex and the Howard street corridor have raised the question as to whether business owners are being adequately compensated when forced to move.

Since 1970, the maximum amount of relocation assistance for the reestablishment of a small business has been $10,000. Inflation has risen 458% since then.   My bill to create a task force to evaluate the State's relocation assistance program would have a "potentially significant impact" on state expenditures, according to the fiscal note. I met with the Transportation Secretary today to seek his support for that study. He was struck by the seemingly everlasting $10,000 ceiling.

"Any bill this session with a fiscal note above $250,000 - even if it's for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, is in trouble." That's what I wrote in this diary ten days ago. Tomorrow there's a hearing on my bill to create a state match of up to $500,000 for private dollars raised for a mentoring program for children in welfare families. Today, it hit me that this doubled the $250,00 ceiling.

"Should I offer an amendment tomorrow lowering the match to $250,000?" I asked Appropriations Committee chair and cosponsor of the bill Pete Rawlings. "Let's see how well we cut the budget," he replied.

Tuesday, February 19

I got hit by friendly fire today.

We were on the House floor, in the midst of passing more than a dozen bills on second reader without any debate.   The Judiciary Committee's technical amendments to my retention-of-DNA- evidence bill had just been adopted. When up stood my Appropriations committee chairman.   "The fiscal note on this bill exceeds $300,000," said Delegate Rawlings.

I vaguely remembered that the Department of State Police had estimated that to be the cost of preparing a facility for storing evidence. I also thought that the fiscal note discounted that estimate. However, I knew for certain that I wasn't going to challenge my chairman unless I knew for certain what the fiscal note said.

"I move to special order [postpone action on] this bill until tomorrow so that the Law Enforcement Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee can review the fiscal note," said my chairman. Without objection, it was so ordered.

My memory did serve me correctly, albeit too slowly. The State Police had estimated the cost to be $308,023, but the fiscal note writer concluded that none of those costs appeared to be a direct result of my bill. Late this afternoon, I learned that the subcommittee agreed with the latter view. My chairman will drop his objection to my bill.

However, by raising questions about a bill sponsored by one of his own subcommittee chairs, he had put the House on notice that any bill costing more than $250,000 would receive such treatment.

"Welfare Chief Is Hoping to Promote Marriage" was the headline on a front-page story in today's New York Times detailing efforts by the Bush administration to encourage marriage in the Congressional reauthorization of welfare reform.

Marriage is, of course, one way to reduce the number of children born to single mothers. It is not the only way. Family planning and abstinence serve that purpose as well. That's why I wrote the Governor today to renew my request for a broad-based initiative to provide contraceptive methods and counseling, pregnancy prevention counseling for younger siblings of teen mothers, and a media campaign promoting abstinence.

This issue was discussed by two talking heads on CNN tonight - one the prime author of the Bush plan, the other from the Brookings think tank. Both acknowledged that marriage was not the only way for single women to avoid having children.   But neither mentioned contraception. Not encouraging.

Wednesday, February 20

The 2-cent stamp, the bridge, and the snake. Each is relevant to a bill of mine that was heard today.

Young Robinson owns a beauty store that was condemned for the renovation of the Hippodrome Theater in downtown Baltimore.   "A stamp cost two cents when my parents came to this country from Korea in 1970. It's now 36 cents," she told the Economic Matters Committee. "The help I can receive to begin my business again should be more than $10,000. That was enough in 1970 but not now." Her testimony in support of my bill to raise the ceiling on assistance above $10,000 for the first time since 1970 was the most compelling of the several witnesses who supported the bill.

Unemployment insurance is intended to provide laid-off workers with a bridge to their next job. However, Congress built this structure in 1935 and it is starting to show signs of age. That's how I began the written testimony on my bill to broaden eligibility for UI to people taking classes or a training course in areas where the state has a labor or skill shortage.

Nearly 70 years ago, most unemployed workers expected to return to the same job when the economy improved. Today, that unskilled or semi-skilled job may be gone forever. A worker needs to improve his or her skills to earn a decent wage.

My bill would be the legislative equivalent of permanently unemployed had we not met with the people who run the UI program yesterday and drafted an amendment that significantly narrowed both the scope of my bill and its cost.

You may recall that I was asked if my constitutional amendment dealing with emergency bills was a snake, a seemingly innocuous bill with significant but undisclosed consequences. Nobody raised that concern at today's hearing. In fact, nobody asked any questions.

But I must add. What I just told you was hearsay. I didn't testify on my bill. I was supposed to do so along with Bob Zarnoch, the Assistant Attorney General at whose request I introduced the bill. Bob had walked into the committee room, the chairman asked him if he wanted to testify, and he did.

Thursday, February 21

The chairman gaveled the Appropriations Committee to order. "This is the Administration's bill," Delegate Rawlings said with a smile. "We want to make sure they get proper credit for it."

The bill is the Budget Reconciliation Act. Essential to balance the Governor's budget, this legislation transfers $365 million from some three dozen special funds and restricts $128 million in growth in certain mandated programs.

Every interest group that doesn't want to see its special fund depleted or its mandated program reduced will be opposing it. Like the Republicans who oppose any attempt to raise revenues, these advocates don't have to say what other program they would cut if we save their funds.

Same for the legislators, of both parties, who have made requests to the Governor, totaling more than $1 billion, for funding in his Supplemental Budget. I'm one of those petitioners - my family planning and abstinence letter of three days ago.

I also helped make the case for not transferring all but $700,000 of the $80 million in the Dedicated Purpose Account for Welfare Reform, as the Governor proposes. I wrote Ben Cardin to ask how the Congress would react. His response, which was distributed at today's hearing, says that using this money for programs that have no relation to welfare reform "hinders those of us in Congress who strongly support providing the States with continued full funding" for their welfare programs.

Ultimately, on March 15 to be precise, those of us on the Appropriations committee must balance the budget by cutting other programs or finding revenue for every proposal of the Governor's that we reject.

Friday, February 8

A bad fiscal note can kill your bill quicker than any organized opposition.

Every bill has a fiscal note, which details the projected cost of implementing the legislation. Any bill this session with a fiscal note above $250,000 -even if it's for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, is in trouble.

The affected state agencies provide estimates to our legislative staff. If the bureaucracy opposes a bill, it may exaggerate the likely cost. However, as the bill's sponsor, I can present countervailing evidence to the fiscal note writer.

Several years ago, my legislation to broaden protections for religious exercise was doomed when the state prison system said that it would cost $12 million to accommodate inmate practices. This was a wildly inflated number, but I had failed to find out what the agencies' cost estimates were before the fiscal note was printed. No intervention - divine or otherwise, could save my bill after the $12 million "cost" became public.

I'm now working on the fiscal notes for two bills I've introduced this session. House Bill 483, which would create a statewide mental health crisis response system, has a price tag, when fully implemented in 2007, of $19 million, according to the fiscal note.

One member of the committee that heard the bill intends to offer an amendment to clarify that implementation would be contingent upon federal funds becoming available. I'm the sponsor of the bill, but I'm also the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Resources. We've got to provide a realistic expectation that federal funds will defray a significant portion of the cost or propose that a pilot crisis response system be undertaken in a handful of jurisdictions. Otherwise the fiscal note will be fatal to the bill.

My bill to require that DNA evidence be retained for the duration of an inmate's imprisonment will be heard this Tuesday. Current law requires that this evidence be kept for three years after imposition of sentence. I've learned that Baltimore City may oppose the bill because of the added cost. Other jurisdictions may as well.

Consequently, we explained to the fiscal note writer that the bill wouldn't require the storage of autos or boats where evidence was found, just the swath containing DNA material. We're also trying to find out what the costs have been in other states which mandate retention as long as the prisoner is in jail. Based on the hearing, we may have to offer an amendment limiting the bill to the most serious crimes or establishing a procedure for the disposition of evidence with the concurrence of defense counsel.

Monday, February 11

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, advised Don Corleone.

In Annapolis that means: Contacting your likely opponents before the bill hearing may soften their opposition. You can explain why you introduced the legislation and see if there's room for compromise. The latter is easier to accomplish if the other party hasn't publicly stated that he's trying to whack your bill.

Even if you can't agree on an amendment before the bill hearing, you can temper someone's opposition. Instead of having a witness testify against the bill, a letter can be distributed to the committee members instead. It leaves less evidence in the members' minds. (On a handful of issues, abortion most notably, no amount of advance notice is going to affect someone's position.)

On my bill regarding retention of DNA evidence, a series of e-mails and conversations with the Mayor's Office has resulted in the City's taking no position on the bill, instead of opposing it. After gauging the committee's reaction at tomorrow's hearing, we'll see if amendments can meet the City's concerns about the cost of storing this evidence.

I'm using a similar tactic to try to address opponents' potential arguments against my bill to criminalize soliciting or making contributions to a terrorist organization. I asked the Attorney General's Office if House Bill 815 is constitutional. The response: it is, but it may be advisable to amend the bill to clarify the ability of organizations and individuals to seek and of attorneys to provide legal advice and representation with respect to investigations and charges based on terrorist activities. I'll have such an amendment drafted.

My bill to allow state employees to sue the state for violations of certain federal civil rights laws is now in the Appropriations Committee. It was initially sent to Judiciary. Having it in my own committee doesn't guarantee its passage, but I'll have more influence being in the room when its fate is determined.

Tuesday, February 12

Dead man walking. That's prison slang for someone on death row. Today, I sat next to a man who for 8 years, 11 months, and 19 days was a dead man walking.

DNA evidence freed Kirk Bloodsworth. Today, he was testifying in support of my bill to require that such evidence be retained for the length of someone's sentence. "If my DNA evidence had been destroyed," said Bloodsworth, "I would be a corpse."

I learned two things at today's hearing that should help my bill get a favorable report from the Judiciary Committee. Last year, this group amended a Senate bill to require that such evidence be preserved for as long as the defendant was imprisoned, if it was for a crime of violence.   Second, my bill is one of the four top issues of the Legislative Black Caucus this session, Delegate Lisa Gladden informed the committee.

On a lighter note: Here's how I began my testimony on my bill to regulate the relationship between agents and student-athletes.

I've checked with the Ethics Committee, and they've assured me that in light of my poor performance at the plate at Orioles Fantasy Camp, there's no conflict of interest in my introducing this bill because there's no agent in the world who would want me for a client.

Wednesday, February 13

I like to think of my subcommittee's hearings as a seminar on the state budget. You can ask questions without committing yourself to a position. There's very little partisanship; I welcome policy suggestions from both Democratic and Republican members.

With just six people on the subcommittee, I only have to know how to count to four to reach a majority. (If it's a controversial matter, I first
have to count to one - the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.)

The subject of today's seminar was Medicaid, the state health insurance program for the poor and working poor. At $1.7 million in State dollars, it's 15% of the State's general fund budget, second in size only to aid for K-12 education.

In a nutshell, here's the budget dilemma we face: The Governor underfunds Medicaid by $96.5 million dollars, according to our budget analyst. At the same time, he would expand the program by $25 million to increase the fees paid physicians participating in the program for the first time in ten years, $10 million to enhance nursing home rates, and $6 million to enable 1,000 more people to stay in the community, instead of a nursing home. If that's not enough to grapple with, what should we do to slow the 15% annual growth in prescription costs?

Today, we raised questions and discussed options. No decisions yet.

In response to the concerns that have been expressed about the child specific benefit for women who have another child while receiving welfare,   I'm looking into whether our policy objective of reducing births to unwed younger mothers who lack a high school education can be met by the existing statutory requirement that a recipient agree to referral to family planning counseling and services, where appropriate.

I asked our staff these questions: How effective is that program as currently administered? How could it be improved?

Thursday, February 14

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization," wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr..

"Nothing in this bill is necessarily construable as increasing taxes," said one of our budget analysts at a meeting today.

He was referring to the Budget Financing Act of 2002. Among the ways it would generate $105 million in revenue are reducing commissions and vendor discounts for lottery agents and retailers who collect sales taxes, preserving the Maryland estate tax despite repeal of the federal credit by the Congress, and not transferring money from the General Fund to the Transportation Trust Fund for the Mass Transit Initiative we adopted last year.

This bill is sponsored in the House by the chair of the Ways and Means Committee and the Speaker. The Senate sponsors are the chair of the Budget and Taxation Committee and eight of the eleven other members of that committee. So we're not talking about some abstract proposition here.

A group of us was asked if we supported a delay in the last phase of the income tax cut enacted by the General Assembly several years ago. "I didn't vote for the tax cut," I replied. "But putting it off a year would be very damaging for Democrats running for reelection in moderate or conservative districts. So I support the Speaker's position - no delay in the tax cut."

Monday, February 4

All politics is local, said Tip O'Neill. Except when it isn't.

Witness the latest gossip about whether or not Bob Ehrlich will run for Governor. His Republican colleagues in the Congress, including the Speaker of the House, are urging him to run for reelection. One seat could determine which party controls the House next year, and they consider him a stronger candidate than any other Republican who might run in the reconfigured 2nd District.

Speaking of the Governor's race, I got a thank you letter today from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for endorsing her last month. "We will do great things," she said in a handwritten postscript. That's why I'm in this business - to make a difference in people's lives.

I met to discuss my constitutional amendment regarding emergency legislation with the chairman of the committee that will hear this proposal. You may recall that my bill would eliminate the obscure state constitutional provision prohibiting an emergency law from creating or abolishing an office or changing the duty of any officer.

As we spoke, emergency legislation was being drafted to change the powers of the Prince George's County School Board in the wake of its firing of the schools' superintendent this past weekend. If such a bill were to pass this session, it would undoubtedly be an emergency measure, subject to challenge under the existing constitutional provision. I made that point at today's meeting. Neither the chairman nor his committee counsel asked if my bill was a snake.

Tuesday, February 5

My first bill hearing of the session was today. House Bill 446 dealt with a loan program created in 1998 to facilitate the conversion of former commercial and office space to residential use. These adaptive uses are occurring in downtowns throughout the country. However, for the numbers to work for a developer, low-interest loans are often needed.

Why do we need HB 446? It would expand the kinds of buildings that are eligible for these loans to include properties that were not originally built for commercial purposes but were last used that way. Buildings that were originally residences should also be eligible for loans that would enable them to be re-converted to residential use.

How did I happen to introduce this bill? Several months ago, I ran into an old friend, Charlie Duff, at lunch. He told me that a property suitable for conversion in downtown Baltimore was not eligible for the loan money because it wasn't originally built for commercial use. The bill got a favorable reception from the Economic Matters Committee today.

Personalize your testimony. That's what I tell people when we're strategizing on how to pass a bill. It's easy to vote against an abstraction. It's tougher to say no to a human being.

Today we held the hearing for the budget of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration. Our budget analyst has recommended that we cut the Governor's proposed $9 million increase for drug treatment in Baltimore City. In response, three recovering addicts testified about how their lives have been transformed since they went into treatment. When they concluded their moving testimony, I said, "I've never seen this room so quiet as when you three were speaking."

Two issues I won't be dealing with this session:

1. Condemning 5,000 abandoned houses in Baltimore City The Mayor's office has decided we don't need to introduce legislation modeled on the New York law that expedites condemnation of properties where property taxes have not been paid for several years. They feel our existing laws are adequate to the task.

2. Health coverage for the "unborn child" I asked our budget analyst how many pregnant women in the state would qualify for Medicaid under the recent Bush Administration proposal to extend coverage to the "unborn child." None was his reply. The reason: Maryland already provides coverage to pregnant women with income at or below 250% of the federal poverty level.

That would also be the case in the other states that have been as aggressive as Maryland in expanding Medicaid coverage to pregnant women. That means the Bush proposal is far more about currying favor with anti-choice conservatives than expanding pre-natal coverage to the working poor. I'm shocked, shocked.

Wednesday, February 6

The "hopefully the horse is not yet out of the barn door" provision is how I described one aspect of The Welfare Innovation Act of 2002 at today's bill hearing. The Dedicated Purpose Account for the Family Investment Program is its statutory name.

This is the fund that I'm hoping to use for an initiative on family planning and counseling, as well as an abstinence media campaign. However, the Governor wants to move out of the account all but $700,000 of the $82.4 million that is now in it. It's one of the 37 fund transfers to balance the budget that I've written about before.

Our intent in establishing this account five years ago was to set aside money to provide monthly benefits, child care, and job training for people on welfare during a recession. This summer, Congressman Ben Cardin expressed concern that the law establishing this fund did not stipulate the purposes for which this money could be withdrawn. (He's the ranking Democratic member of the House of Representatives subcommittee responsible for welfare.) In response, I had language drafted to provide that this fund could be used only for the four policy objectives set forth in the federal welfare reform law of 1996, plus a fifth purpose - reducing child poverty.

The Governor can propose that most of the money in the account be transferred out, but the General Assembly's approval is needed for it to happen. My "barn door" reference today was designed to call attention to the decision that faces us.

Never take anything for granted - even in your twentieth year as a legislator.

Today I introduced the bill which would subject the State to lawsuits by its employees under several federal civil rights laws because the Supreme Court has held that under our federalist system, only the state itself can waive its sovereign immunity. The Congress can't do that to the states.

I had this legislation drafted as an amendment to the State Personnel Article so that it would be referred to my committee, Appropriations, which has jurisdiction over this area. Had the bill been drafted to the Human Relations Commission law, it would not be sent to us. So I was very surprised when I saw that the bill had not been assigned to my committee.

I informed our committee staff so that they could ask the chairman to request that the bill be rereferred to Appropriations. I pointed out that the same legislation has been introduced in the Senate and sent to the committee with jurisdiction over personnel issues. Since the House Majority Leader is responsible for assigning bills to committees, I spoke to her about this as well.

With the election of Nancy Kopp as Treasurer, the Speaker has filled the fiscal leadership positions that she will bevacating. I've been named to the Spending Affordability Committee, which sets the limit on the growth in recurring expenses in the state operating budget before the Governor sends his budget to the legislature.

Thursday, February 7

If you didn't get your bill to the Clerk's office by 5 pm today, it will be referred to the Rules Committee. Virtually every bill comes out of Rules, but time is your enemy if you're trying to pass legislation and have only 90 days to do so. To avoid that delay, hundreds of bills will be introduced today. My count was nine, for a total of 23 this session.

One of those bills was heard today. House Bill 483 would create a statewide mental health crisis response system. This intervention would prevent suicides, homicides, and unnecessary psychiatric hospitalizations and reduce the harm individuals cause to themselves and others. A worthy goal, but the price tag, when fully implemented, is $19 million. Consequently, I'm going to see if federal funds could defray part of the cost.

Here's another example of how important a bill's committee assignment can be. The innocuous sounding Woman's Health Protection Act has been referred to the Senate Education, Health & Environmental Affairs (EHEA). Makes sense.

But this is an anti-choice bill. It would require a physician performing an abortion to inform the woman about alternatives. All abortion bills in years past have gone to the Judicial Proceedings Committee. That panel has become so conservative, the pro-choice chairman might not be able to keep this bill in his desk and off the Senate floor. A majority on the EHEA committee is pro-choice; they'll give the bill an unfavorable report, killing it.

Friday, January 25

In Annapolis, nothing concentrates the mind like a bill hearing. At this early stage of the session, with only 376 bills introduced in the House, compared to 1464 by the end of last year, nothing concentrates the mind like a bill's introduction.

Take House Bill 364, Constitutional Amendment - Emergency Legislation Scope. I got three calls today, asking me, as the bill's sponsor, what it would do. In the local parlance that means: Is it a snake - a seemingly innocuous bill with significant but undisclosed consequences?

I assured my callers that all HB 364 would do is remove an archaic provision from the State Constitution which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting an emergency law that creates or abolishes an office or changes the duty of any officer. An emergency bill must be approved by 3/5 of the members in both houses, but it takes effect the moment the Governor and the two presiding officers sign it. Otherwise, the earliest a bill can take effect is June 1.

For instance, the Glendening Administration's package of anti-terrorism legislation, designed to allow state officials to respond effectively to terrorist attacks, would create certain new offices and change the duties of some current state officials. I told my callers that HB 364 was suggested to me by my attorney, Bob Zarnoch, Assistant Attorney General and Counsel to the General Assembly. They seemed reassured.

My diary reference to Peter Edelman also prompted some interest.

I responded to one virtual correspondent who liked the idea of extending unemployment insurance to people who've been working part-time: "My emphasis on welfare reform has been on incentives, as opposed to entitlements, but since unemployment benefits are provided to workers higher up the economic ladder, those at the bottom of that ladder should receive those benefits as well. Given our fiscal situation, this bill won't pass this session but it will begin the discussion down here."

Another wrote of Peter Edelman as "something of a godfather to a small group of policy analysts who focus on welfare issues....As I read your diary, and Peter's response to your question [where Edelman said Maryland's welfare reform law was not punitive], I thought that I need to send Peter some talking points so that he can weigh in on some aspects of our welfare program that are less than stellar."

"I welcome his contribution, whether he's praising us or urging us to do better," I replied.

Monday, January 28

Five thousand slum properties will be condemned and leveled by the City of Baltimore over the next two years. That was the headline-making policy initiative in Mayor Martin O'Malley's State of the City address today.

The Mayor's efforts to deal with these derelict properties will be expedited by a law that I sponsored in 1999. It allows the City to use "quick take" procedures to gain possession of a property that is unoccupied and unfit for habitation, with rehabilitation costs that significantly exceed its market value.

If 70% of the dwelling units on a block meet these conditions, all of the others will be considered abandoned as well. This enables the City to remedy the entire block, instead of acting in a piecemeal, house-by-house manner. I didn't learn of the Mayor's proposal until yesterday, but I'm already researching a New York law that expedites condemnation of properties where property taxes have not been paid for several years.

A redistricting map for the state's eight Congressional districts has been released by the commission appointed by the Governor. Ben Cardin, my mentor and former district mate in Annapolis, would have to run for reelection in a district that would lose much of its base in urban and inner suburban neighborhoods in Baltimore City and County.

I joined my 42nd District colleagues, Senator Barbrara Hoffman, Delegates Jim Campbell and Maggie McIntosh, in writing the Governor: "Ben Cardin and the constituents that he so ably represents do not merit such wholesale changes to a district that has been a bellwether of progressive Democratic representation and commitment to federal urban issues since 1970."

Another district has been drawn to enhance the chances of Baltimore County Executive Dutch Ruppersberger to be elected to Congress. Today I learned that some other Democrats have designs on that seat. I'm supporting Dutch. So I'm not spreading any rumors about others seeking a mention great or otherwise.

Tuesday, January 29

There is an aura of mystery surrounding our consideration of the state budget. Legislators, lobbyists, and journalists whom I respect often need a tutorial on the budget process when they venture into this unfamiliar territory.

"Why do we need this bill?" is not a question that's asked in this instance. The state can't function without a budget. Consequently, it's the only bill that must pass at every session. (This year, we must also pass a Congressional redistricting plan.)

The budget is about money, but it's also about policy. Governor Glendening's priorities are education, smart growth, and the environment. The discretionary growth in spending in these areas has been significant during his eight years. Not so in other areas.

That became very apparent last year as we struggled to provide more money for Medicaid and mental health services. It resulted in "the most serious floor debate about the budget I've ever witnessed in my twenty-plus years down here," said one observer at the time.

This year, those health programs are again underfunded. Add to that the special funds from which the Governor would move money to balance the operating budget. The Appropriations Committee could decide on its own which of those 37 fund transfers to approve and which to reject. But then the members of another committee, which passed the law creating the fund that would now lose money, might seek to overturn our decision on the House floor.

Better to lift the veil of mystery and have other members inside our tent then we're grappling with which special funds won't lose their dollars and which other programs have to be cut if we don't move the money from a special fund.

Monday, January 21

Today's briefing on the budget generated a lot more interest than normal. Every designated fund that the Governor would reduce has its supporters. For example, Constellation Energy Group, parent company of Baltimore Gas & Electric, is concerned about the $30 million that would be taken from the Electricity Generating Equipment Property Tax Grant, which benefits counties where power plants are located. The Racing Facility Redevelopment Bond Fund would be out of all the money it currently has. That affects the horse racing industry, as well as legislators, such as myself, who represent neighborhoods adjacent to Pimlico Race Course.

For every dollar that isn't moved from a special fund to the general fund, we must cut a dollar from the budget somewhere else. And those programs that would be cut have their patrons as well. The state's public colleges and universities would receive an additional $33 million, the biggest discretionary increase in the budget. Physician rates in the Medicaid program would go up $25 million. Faculty, students, alumni, and doctors are numerous and potent.

One fund that the Governor has not touched is the Cigarette Restitution Fund. Three years ago, when my legislation established tobacco-related public health needs as the priority for the state's share of the tobacco lawsuit settlement, we were worried that the Governor would veto the bill because it limited his budget authority. In his State of the State address, he said that he took the most pride and satisfaction in four achievements: putting tobacco out of business in Maryland was the first that he mentioned. We wouldn't be doing it without that designated - and untouched, fund.

Unlike the Congress, we must pass a balanced budget. Consequently, we make the difficult decisions about spending priorities, with a minimum of fiscal sleight of hand. Wall Street has noticed; Maryland is one of only nine states with the highest bond rating, AAA.

Tuesday, January 22

The day began with more discussion about the budget. The revenue issue this year is whether we delay the final phase of the 10% income tax cut. Next year, it will be whether to increase the sales tax rate or broaden the base (in English, tax transactions that we don't today). Slots are an option as well, but that wasn't discussed this morning.

The newly elected governor and legislature won't be able to fill the gap between revenues and expenditures with one-time only transfers. That cupboard will be bare.

If the budget is the number one issue this session, how we respond to terrorism is number two, with the proposed CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield conversion to for-profit status next in importance.

I will be introducing legislation that would make it a crime to solicit material support or resources for an organization that is designated a terrorist organization by the Secretary of State or to provide material support or resources to such an organization. I sponsored a similar bill six years ago, but it did not pass. New York enacted such a law in the wake of September 11.

To address concerns that my bill might infringe upon First Amendment rights, I shared a draft of it with lawyers at the American Jewish Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Maryland Attorney General's Office. I then revised the bill in light of their comments.

The proposed BlueCross conversion was the subject of a briefing before the Appropriations Committee today. In recent years, the company has virtually abandoned its role as the insurer of last resort for individuals who have difficulty obtaining coverage because they have health problems or work for a small business. Will a for-profit BlueCross be more responsive to the bottom line and its new California owners than to the needs of Marylanders? The Insurance Commissioner will review this proposed sale, but the General Assembly can change the criteria that must be met for it to be approved.

Wednesday, January 23

In the election for Treasurer, we've progressed from the Great Mentioner mentioning credible or aspiring candidates to the Ultimate Mentioner, the Speaker of the House, supporting a candidate. The Speaker's endorsement of Delegate Nancy Kopp makes her the clear front runner. She's eminently qualified, and as I pointed out before, the 188-person electorate consists of 141 delegates and 47 senators.

The jockeying has already begun, myself included, to fill the fiscal leadership positions that would be vacated if Del. Kopp becomes Treasurer.

"Why do we need this bill?" That's the question a bill's sponsor must answer. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the law needs to be changed. I asked that question at a meeting this morning about legislation prompted by the Supreme Court decisions holding that the Congress can't subject the states to lawsuits by its employees.

In this instance, "Why do we need this bill?" means: Does Maryland's personnel law already provide sufficient remedies for employees who've been denied a promotion because of their age or a handicap? No, we concluded. It treats state employees as second class citizens, denying them the legal remedies federal law provides to nearly all other employees.

I just counted. There are 37 special funds from which the Governor proposes to move dollars to the State's general fund. Earlier today, I had my first meeting with lobbyists who have a special interest in one of those accounts. I listened, asked questions, and suggested they prepare a one-page summary of their argument. But I made no commitment. Many more such meetings will undoubtedly follow.

Tonight I heard Walter Dellinger, Acting Solicitor General during the Clinton Administration, speak to a meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the liberal alternative to the Federalist Society. Just as Lincoln reclaimed the Constitution from state's righters at Gettysburg, said Dellinger, so did Dr. King in his "I Have a Dream" speech in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial. Liberals must now reassert their view of the constitution.

I also spoke with Peter Edelman, who resigned from the Clinton Administration in protest of the welfare reform law in 1996. I told him that I was co-chair of the legislature's welfare reform committee.

"You've got a good law," he said. "It's not punitive." "What do we need to do next?" I asked.

"Extend unemployment benefits to people who've only been working part-time," Edelman replied.

"I'm drafting a bill that would do just that," I said.

Thursday, January 24

Not everything in Annapolis happens by design.

You may recall that I asked members of the Maryland Alliance for the Poor how they would discourage young, unmarried women from h