The other people in the room were busy discussing policy.
I was participating, but then I said to myself, “We can talk endlessly about policy among ourselves, but how are we going to make it the law of Maryland?”
So I got to work.
I emailed someone who works for an advocate whose input should be persuasive with an important legislator.
That someone called me right away and agreed to ask the advocate to call the legislator tomorrow.
The levers of power are in motion…
I’ve been lobbied at the race track before.
This time, however, it was about the slots bill, not a “can’t miss” horse running in the next race.
I had already made my wagers on the 10th race Saturday when I had a brief conversation with a representative of the horse breeders.
The lobbying continued this afternoon.
I met with two registered lobbyists for different players in the racing industry one after the other.
1 and 1A, I called them.
—
No action has been taken on one of my bills.
I asked the lobbyist for the Cabinet department that supports my legislation if his Secretary could call the committee chair on behalf of my legislation.
“Will do,” was the reply. “We also have bills in that committee.”
No one would mistake a voting session of most committees in Annapolis for a New England town meeting.
The bills have been discussed and decided by the committee leadership beforehand.
But there are exceptions.
Yesterday, Ways and Means was considering legislation to raise the compulsory age for public school attendance from 16 to 18.
“The amendments we are adding to this bill require a comprehensive study of how our schools can best meet the needs of these kids who are dropping out,” declared Delegate Anne Kaiser, chair of the education subcommittee.
Delegate Kaiser continued, “I asked Nancy Grasmick [the former State Superintendent of Education] what is the one thing that we could do for our students that would have the greatest impact. She replied, ‘Early childhood education.’”
Senator Bill Ferguson and I have introduced legislation to do just that. It would make a full-day program available for four-year olds whose parents’ income is below a certain level.
But where was the reference to pre-kindergarten in the bill before us today?
I couldn’t find it. So I asked.
It requires the State Department of Education to report on “successful early interventions at the elementary school level.”
“Does that include pre-K?” I said.
I was about to offer an amendment, but Del. Kaiser spoke first.
Let’s delete “elementary school” and substitute “early childhood.”
This mission accomplished.
I began my day by reading through the list of House bills that would be considered by the full Senate today.
I learned that a Senate committee acted favorably on some of the bills it heard yesterday but not mine.
Does that mean something?
Has my bill been taken hostage, to be freed only if legislation supported by the committee receives favorable action in the House?
—-
We drafted a technical amendment dealing with foreclosure to my bill imposing a penalty on people who improperly obtain the homestead tax credit.
In this instance, technical means it deals with property law, a subject about which I have retained very little from the little that I learned in my first-year law school class.
I reminded my staff this morning: “It is essential that the industry official whom we worked with on the technical amendment be at the witness table with me later today – in case someone asks a question about this language.”
—-
“People like to be asked, and people like to be thanked,” Tip O’Neill advised.
A staffer told me that another legislator needed to hear from me about an issue of mine before his subcommittee.
I explained my proposal to my colleague, asked for his support, and got it.
Then I thanked the staffer.
At the Supreme Court today, much of the discussion dealt with what I do for a living.
The legal question was this: If the Court finds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, what is the effect on the other provisions of the health care law?
Are all of the other parts of the law nullified? Some? None?
Phrased another way, should the judiciary revise the legislation or should the Congress, which wrote it in the first place?
None of the justices has ever run for office or had to count to a number higher than five to reach a majority.
The late Justice William Brennan reportedly said that counting to five is the most important principle of constitutional law because five votes constitute a majority on the Supreme Court.
Several of the Justices spoke today of their need for a test, an objective standard that would apply to similar cases in the future. (They also made clear their less than favorable view of the legislative process, as today’s transcript demonstrates.)
In Annapolis, our guiding principles are our assessment of sound public policy and how to address the ideological and political needs of 71 members, a majority of the House of Delegates.
“EXPAND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN THE STATE.”
Legislation that Senator Bill Ferguson and I introduced had that purpose.
It would be one of the permitted uses of money in the Education Trust Fund.
No action has been taken on either of our bills.
However, that language was amended onto the slots bill that just passed the Senate. (Amendments are in ALL CAPS.)
Now it’s our job to try to strengthen that amendment in the House so that a certain amount of the money in the Education Trust Fund must be used for this purpose.
—-
Before another of my bills was heard in the House, a representative of an affected interest group shared with me some concerns.
No amendment was proposed by this group, and my bill has passed the House.
I don’t want an amendment to be offered at the Senate hearing on my legislation without knowing about it in advance.
So I called the representative. I was promised language to discuss by day’s end.
It’s better to be informed than surprised.
This is how our debate began on the bill to create a health exchange, where consumers can evaluate health insurance policies. The exchange would implement the Affordable Care Act.
“When I was driving here, I heard something on talk radio,” stated a Republican delegate.
“Many people consider that entertainment,” responded the Democratic floor leader for the legislation.
What followed was entertainment only if you’re amused by excessive and misleading rhetoric.
My Republican colleagues declared:
“This bill takes us down the dark night of socialism.”
“This won’t solve our uncompensated care problem because the people in emergency rooms are not lawfully present in this country.”
People will still be buying their health insurance from private companies. The Congress did not nationalize the industry.
Far too many of the people seeking care at an emergency room don’t have health insurance on the job. The vast majority of them are citizens of this country.
That’s no joke.
—-
I now have two file cards in my breast pocket.
One lists the 14 bills or issues I’m working on that have passed the House of Delegates and will avoid the delay of the Rules Committee.
The other has my five bills still waiting for the Red Sea to part in the House so that they can cross over to the dry land of the Senate.
“A majority of low-income women oppose abortion.”
When one of my colleagues said that during the floor debate on her amendment to further restrict Medicaid funding for abortion, I rose to respond.
“It’s not a question of what a majority of poor women may or may not believe,” I declared. “It’s a decision for each individual woman to make with the people she chooses to consult.”
“For poor women, that choice is already limited by the existing language. We should reject this proposal.”
The amendment failed, 48-82.
The same number opposed a similar amendment last year. I know that because we had discussed it at our strategy meeting this morning.
—
During a discussion of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act on Morning Joe today, Jeff Greenfield prefaced his remarks by saying, “It’s been a long while since I was in law school, and I never had a practice.”
My last semester in law school, Jeff was my co-professor for “Writing About the Law.” I was thinking about not taking the Bar and sought his advice.
“I had that conversation with my Jewish mother,” he responded.
He lived to tell the tale.
So did I.
Not taking the Bar was the best thing I never did.
I’ve been doing this since I first got here.
Protecting a woman’s right to choose was the issue when I was a floor whip on Medicaid funding for abortions in 1983.
A health benefit exchange will allow Marylanders to compare and purchase health insurance plans. It is a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance law passed by the Congress.
Amendments prohibiting coverage of abortions under plans offered on the exchange were rejected by the Health and Government Operations Committee. We expect they will be offered again on the House floor.
Our preparation will be the same as it was 29 years ago:
Don’t take anything for granted. Inform pro-choice members prior to the vote. Prepare for unfavorable contingencies.
In 1983, I passed my first bond bill.
It was for the Jewish Museum.
This session, I’m trying to do the same thing for the Roland Park Water Tower.
For the first time, however, I need to demonstrate that a local project will remain eligible to receive state dollars.
That’s because the Water Tower is on a list of historic properties now owned by Baltimore City that may be sold or leased if recommended by a consultant the City just hired.
We need to draft language that would reassure the budget committees here that the tower will not be sold to a for-profit business.
“I’m an Old Testament person.”
I didn’t say that. Delegate Michael Smigiel did.
He was explaining why the death penalty was appropriate vengeance for heinous murders.
I had just testified for its repeal.
Our back and forth continued.
At its conclusion, he said, “I guess I’m Old Testament and you’re New Testament.”
The room erupted in laughter.
“When you first said you were Old Testament,” I responded, “I thought about asking you, ‘What are your plans for Passover?’”
