Don't Go Into The Congressional Kitchen!
The Cooks Are Making Law!
In which we discover that Republicans are stirring in some revolting
additives to proposed bankruptcy legislation. A word to the wise: skip
the banquet.
An old saying questions the knowledge base of those who claim to love
either the law or sausage. As that saying goes, those who love either
the law or sausage have never watched either being made. As for sausage,
perhaps the old saying, "in matters of taste there is no disputing,"
serves to explain why I can enjoy a delicious sage sausage while one of
my co-workers touches nothing from a pig. I have watched sausage being
made, and though it has not deterred me, I can comprehend the revulsion
of those who object to making a meal from a pig's varietal meats.
As to the making of the former, the law, I suspect that there is a
certain truth in the old saying. For the saying to be true, of course,
we must begin by carefully separating the Law of God from the Law of
Man. As the Psalmist proclaimed in Psalm 19, there is a law that is
above reproach, that is holy, that is, because it comes from the Father,
in a word, Perfect. But if we confine our considerations to the laws of
men and how they come into being, we are likely to discover much that is
unpleasing to our sensibilities.
A couple of quick examples demonstrate the dyspeptic quality of
law-making. Just recently, as gasoline prices were picking the wallets
of the average Joe, savvy congressmen called for a roll-back of the
federal gasoline tax increase approved by the Clinton/Gore
administration a few years back. Admittedly, the rollback would have
only resulted in a price reduction of, perhaps, a nickle per gallon of
gasoline. That nickle per gallon savings, however, works out to a dollar
per fill-up savings for a twenty gallon tank. Fill that tank up once a
week for a month and you are four-fifths of the way to a five dollar
savings.
But the idea was spiked before it had a chance because the
savings would only be of that smaller amount. I don't know about you,
but I don't walk past a five dollar bill on the sidewalk, and I don't
add an extra five dollars to my tax payments. Nonetheless, this savings
was designed to the average Joe because it was not more of a savings. Or
consider the times that a congressman or senator, while being
interviewed about recently enacted legislation, complains that the text
of the legislation is so long that it was not possible to have read the
entire text before voting on it.
Is it possible that you expended your
elected franchise to send to Washington D.C. a representative who would
willingly cast a vote in ignorance of the consequences of the vote? The
old saying also seems an indictment of those who love the law yet are
unaware of the back room politics and bullying that frequently leads to
its enactment.
During the heyday of the Operation Rescue movement in the 1980s and
early 1990s, liberal Republicans and Democrats across the board in the
United States Congress engaged in just such a foment. On the cusp of the
Supreme Court decision in Bray vs. Alexandria Women's Health Center, the
congressional rabble was compelled to react.
Then-Congressman Schumer
led the crusade for the enactment of a statute providing federal
protection to abortion businesses. Schumer's proposal, the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act, proposed federal jail time for those who
obstructed access to clinic entrances, even those whose commitment to
and observance of the principles of non-violence would have made Dr.
Martin Luther King proud. The FACE Act also authorized lawsuits in
federal courts by the Attorney General of United States, the attorneys
general of the several states, and individuals who claimed to have been
injured under the statute.
At the time the Congress was considering the
FACE Act, Congressman Schumer's proposal contained numerous significant
weaknesses that would have provided strong grounds for legal challenge
in a federal court. Those weaknesses, however, were identified and
removed from the final product. Unfortunately, the work of strengthening
the FACE Act was done, in large measure, by persons commonly associated
with the pro-life movement.
At the present time, the United States Congress is considering
legislation to reform certain aspects of federal bankruptcy law. In
particular, Congress is looking at the ease with which individuals may
avoid personal responsibility for the debts that they create, especially
credit card debt. Proposals to amend the bankruptcy law have been
pending for several years.
Last year, as the Senate moved towards a vote
on bankruptcy amendments another sausage moment in legislative history
occurred. Charles Schumer, now a senator from the state of New York,
proposed an amendment to the bankruptcy act that would prohibit
individuals from discharging in bankruptcy fines and judgments resulting
from their violations of the FACE Act.
Schumer was acting on behalf of
the abortion industry and the morally bankrupt National Organization for
Women. Together those interests may hold several million dollars in
judgments against Operation Rescue, and its founder, Randall Terry.
At
the time when Schumer proposed his amendment, word of Randall Terry's
personal bankruptcy filing was circulating in both the pro-life and the
pro abortion movements. Among the debts that Mr. Terry sought to
discharge in bankruptcy were those judgment debts arising from his
nonviolent obstructions of abortion business.
Schumer, a Democrat, threatened to filibuster on the bankruptcy
amendment vote if the Senate would not vote on his proposal as one of
the amendments to be considered. As a Democrat, of course, Schumer was
in the minority in the Senate. Nonetheless, like a group of well trained
geldings, the Republican majority in the Senate both bowed to Schumer's
demand for a vote and then joined with Schumer in voting for his
amendment.
Because of the inclusion of the Schumer amendment in the
Senate version of the Bankruptcy Amendment legislation, and because of
other differences, the House and the Senate must reconcile the two
different versions of legislation. That reconciliation is taking place
at this time. Typically, each house appoints several members to a
conference committee, the job of which is the reconcile, if possible,
the differing versions of legislation.
In the present case, however, much of the work of reconciliation is
being accomplished by congressional staffers at the direction of their
bosses. For the naive outsider with a pro-life bent, the path to
reconciliation seems simple: strike the Schumer amendment.
Remember,
Schumer is a Democrat. Democrats do not control either House of
Congress. A recent incident eliminates the fact, however, that what
seems simple to us outsiders never occurs to those in the Beltway. For
the Republic and friends of the pro-life movement in the United States
Senate and United States House of Representatives are not proposing that
the Schumer amendment be omitted from the final version of the
bankruptcy legislation.
Instead, once again, only proposals to moderate
and to temporize the Schumer amendment, rather than to strike it down,
are on the table. Because they are in the minority, it may seem odd that
they appear to be calling the shots on this legislation. Those with
elephantine memories may find it striking that the Republicans do not
govern their chambers in the way that made Lyndon Johnson or Sam Rayburn
notorious.
I had the opportunity to participate in one recent discussion with
congressional staffers regarding the Schumer amendment. On the table was
a proposal to modify the Schumer amendment by removing the specific
reference to FACE judgments; instead, the staffers were considering a
proposal that would prevent a discharging bankruptcy of court costs,
fines, and judgments arising from willful and malicious conduct that
causes bodily injury.
Of particular moment was a proposal to modify
"bodily injury" with the word "grievous" or "serious." Having spent more
than a dozen years as a lawyer for peaceful pro-life activists, I was
shocked. It had been my expectation that the discussion would focus on
removing the Schumer amendment from the bankruptcy legislation.
With
those two congressional staffers on the telephone, I asked why this was
not subject of discussion. One of those staffers expelled an exasperated
huff of air and sharply declared, "We are not going to go over this
again!" I replied that it was the expectation of the nonviolent pro-life
movement that Schumer's amendment, a proposal made by a member of the
minority party, would not be included in the final legislation in any
form.
Both staffers then replied in a way that made plain the fact that
Republicans control of both Houses of Congress had no intention of
governing or prevailing in this matter. Because the elimination of the
Schumer amendment was not even on the agenda, I expressed my profound
disappointment with those involved in the reconciliation process and
excused myself from the conversation.
Neville Chamberlain, euphoric on the ether of appeasement, returned from
negotiating with Adolph Hitler and, stepping from his airplane,
proclaimed, "Peace in our time!" History has not kindly regarded
Chamberlain or Chamberlain's appeasement. Instead, it is Winston
Churchill, who demonstrated the unshakeable resolve to resist Hitler's
tyranny, upon whom history has smiled.
Regrettably, the Republican Party is showing all the signs of being the
appeasement party for our generation. Rather than demonstrating
admirable resolve, rather than refusing to compromise with Schumer to
the injury of nonviolent pro-life activists, we can confidently look
with expectation toward the soon-coming day when Majority Leader Vacant
Lott and House Speaker Dennis Hasnone, arm in arm, step from the United
States Capitol and euphorically proclaim, "Bankruptcy amendment in our
time!"
Truthserum
thetruthserum@yahoo.com
