May 28, 2001

Eagle Eye on Austin

DEFEAT OF DOMA APPARENTLY THE WORK OF LAST MINUTE BACKDOOR MANEUVERINGS 
After winding its way through the Byzantine halls of the Senate and the hornet’s nest called the House State Affairs Committee, the Defense of Marriage Act suffered a silent death at the hands of the House Calendars Committee. Many have questioned why DOMA met with such an untimely fate in a committee chaired by a co-author of the bill. The answer, according to numerous sources, is that Speaker of the House Pete Laney put pressure on Chairman Barry Telford to omit DOMA from the final House calendar of the session, thereby assuring its defeat without a formal vote ever being taken. 

If Speaker Laney did indeed orchestrate the defeat of the Defense of Marriage Act, the question of why he did so must be asked and answered in a satisfactory manner. Of course a satisfactory answer would include a compelling reason why one of our most powerful public officials would leave his state vulnerable to legal challenges to its marriage code that may end in legal recognition of same-sex unions. Given the importance of the institution of marriage to society, only a few decent responses come to mind. 

One good response would be that DOMA is unnecessary in Texas; that our state laws already define a married couple as one man and one woman. Although this last statement is true, it does not lend any credence to the conclusion that DOMA is unnecessary. DOMA proscribes the recognition of same-sex unions performed out of state, and addresses quasi-marital institutions such as Vermont’s Civil Unions. Neither of these possibilities is addressed under current Texas law.

A second good response would be that DOMA did in fact pass this session, but no one seemed to notice. This misleading claim is nothing more than a red-herring argument that needs a little debunking. True, Representatives Will Hartnett and Warren Chisum amended DOMA-like language to bills dealing with, respectively, property law and Medicaid, but neither of these well-intentioned amendments are comparable in effect to DOMA. At best, they will discourage legal action by same-sex couples based on particular claims, while simultaneously injected hints of legislative intent throughout Texas statute unfavorable to same-sex relationships. Although helpful (indeed, the best that could be done given the circumstances), attacking the issue piecemeal still leaves gaping holes in our family law.

Finally, one truly wretched but tragically plausible response would be that defeating DOMA was politically expedient for the Democratic Party and, in particular, the Laney Speakership. How is this so? Simply put, the vast majority of Texans favor the traditional definition of the word “marriage” as being a union between one man and one woman. Thus, any politician who attempts to redefine marriage is likely to experience significant voter resentment. A number of Democrats in the House are ideologically disposed to vote against DOMA despite this fact, pinning their reelection chances on the power of incumbency and the short-term memory of the electorate. Redistricting, however, will radically alter the dynamics of the 2002 election cycle, and Laney knows this. Already facing the prospect of significant Democrat losses in the coming election cycle, Laney cannot afford to lose any allies on account of being defeated due to bad votes on DOMA. By keeping DOMA from coming to the House floor, however, Laney avoided what would have been a dangerous vote for those Democrats running in hostile districts in 2002. Call it the “save-a-speaker” strategy. 

If this last scenario is factual, then Texas families everywhere have been seriously short-changed by the political process. Granted, Speaker Laney has a track record of being a fair and decent man, and undoubtedly believes that Texas is in no danger of ratifying same-sex unions any time soon. However, given the nationwide spate of lawsuits by couples seeking ratification of their Civil Unions in states historically opposed to such innovations, denying Texans the protection of a strong DOMA is irresponsible. Those who had a hand in its defeat should not be given free passes by their constituents come election time. 

CONSERVATIVES SCORE RARE VICTORIES ON MEDICAID BILL— FOR NOW 
Conservatives won small but hard fought victories last night when two lawmakers amended a Medicaid simplification bill last week with defense of marriage language and parental notification provisions. Although the bill itself is anything but conservative in nature, these two amendments stand out as notable conservative victories in a session that has steered far to the left of center. 

The first amendment was authored by Representative Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), and added language to the bill defining the word “spouse” as either “a husband, who is a male, or a wife, who is a female.” The amendment goes on to say that a “member of a civil union or similar relationship entered into in another state between persons of the same sex is not a spouse.” This language provides legislative guideposts for courts that may deal with lawsuits regarding same-sex relationships in the future. Although it does not offer the overarching protections found in DOMA, this amendment is a step in the right direction.

The second amendment was offered by Representative Phil King (R-Weatherford), and excludes minors from a “demonstration project for women’s health care services” offering “ counseling and education on contraceptive methods,” and the “provision of contraceptives” to all participants. Because the original language of the bill specified that women of “childbearing age” were to be eligible under the project, teens would have been able to obtain contraceptives from a taxpayer-funded organization without the knowledge or consent of their parents. 

The Medicaid bill, along with these two conservative amendments, is currently in conference committee where Senators and House members are working on final language. Unfortunately, the House and Senate authors of the bill do not approve of the conservative amendments, and are working to eliminate them in conference committee. Judging by the difficulty that all conservative legislation has experienced during the course of this session, it would not be surprising to see them succeed. 

Editor’s Note: Right after this article went to press, Diane Delisi (R-Temple) amended SB 292 with excellent DOMA language. Like the Hartnett and Chisum amendments before it, the Delisi amendment will not provide the overarching protection of a full-blown DOMA, but provides yet another guidepost for courts to follow. 

Brief Notes From Near and Far

DEFECTION OF VERMONT LAWMAKER SHIFTS BALANCE OF POWER IN U.S. SENATE.
The defection of Senator James Jeffords from the Republican Party on Wednesday of last week altered the balance of power in the U.S. Senate, and may imperil President Bush’s future judicial nominations. By announcing his intention to become an Independent and caucus with the Democrats, Jeffords effectively handed control of the Senate over to the Democrat Party. The new makeup of the Senate will be 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. Senator Tom Daschle will take over as Majority Leader, and the ultra-liberal Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont will chair the all-important Judiciary Committee, placing conservative judicial nominees in serious jeopardy. This point may prove for Republicans to be the most damaging consequence of Jefford’s decision since a number of Supreme Court Justices are considering retirement within the next two to four years. Without control of the Judiciary Committee, Senate Republicans will be unable to force conservative judges through the nomination process without help from across the aisle. This fact alone could prompt President Bush to send moderate to liberal nominees to the Senate in hope of avoiding a bloodbath. “The White House has to realize that Democrats will have a larger voice on judicial nominees,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). “People who are not moderate will have a rough time.” 

In addition to fretting over the ramifications of Jeffords’ decision regarding judicial appointments, top Republicans are quietly sorting out who will receive the brunt of the blame for “losing the Senate.” The truth of the matter is, however, that conservative Republicans have not had working control of the Senate for some time. With such moderates as Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and even Arlen Spector (R-Pennsylvania) in the Senate Republican Caucus, conservatives are a minority in a Senate that steers left of center on many issues. Jeffords’ defection only highlighted this fact by placing administrative control of the Senate in the hands of the liberals who had dominated it in practice for some time. 

The loss of the Senate may have beneficial consequences for the conservative wing of the Republicans party. With one less moderate to appease, conservative Republicans may be able to better articulate their message, and perhaps gain enough momentum to regain the Senate in 2002. In addition, liberal firebrands like Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy will now have to put-up or shut-up when it comes to behaving in the “bi-partisan” fashion that they accuse conservatives of being incapable of doing. 

Links to more on this story on the web:
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/5/23/224820
http://www.msnbc.com/news/577311.asp

How Will Jeffords’ Decision Affect Bush’s Appointees?

Who’s to Blame for the Jeffords Defection?

Jeffords Says Republican Party Too Conservative

CONSERVATIVE LEADERS BLAST BUSH EDUCATION PLAN 
Conservative leaders on and off of Capitol Hill spent much of last week lambasting President Bush’s education plan. Particularly troubling to these leaders is the language in the Senate version of the plan that would federal funds to provide hate-crimes instruction programs in public schools. Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America noted, "What it really means is that the schools can develop pro homosexual curricula that will say that if a child comes to school with Biblical beliefs that says that homosexuality is wrong, they'll be contributing to a climate of hostility toward homosexuals that may lead to hate conflicts," Knight said. 

Matt Kaufman, who has reported on hate crimes legislation for Focus on the Family’s Citizen magazine, said including educational legislation with hate crimes language is a strategy designed by homosexual activists. "The idea they're pushing is that any opposition to homosexuality is just on the slippery slope to committing hate crime," Kaufman said. "They're using the hate crimes idea to try to de-legitimize the traditional Christian position." Knight added, “"This is really a license to persecute Christian children. I'm not saying that lightly. I’m not exaggerating. That's where all this is leading." [Editor’s note: The recently signed James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act for the state of Texas includes a similar provision that will allow for the teaching of homosexual values in public school classrooms.] 

In addition to the hate crimes language in the bill, conservative leaders expressed concern that H.R. 1 would undermine local control of education by implementing a host of federal mandates regarding curriculum, assessment, and School-to-Work/Goals 2000. They noted that the plan calls for massive increases in federal spending on education in direct contradiction of the conservative call for reducing the role of the National Education Agency.

According to Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), HR 1 will:

• Expand federal control over education—HR 1 uses words like "shall," "must," and "require" to issue commands to states and local schools over two thousand times!
• Spend $23 billion on failed education programs! Force states to implement federally-approved education standards. 
• Impose massive new testing mandates on the States that will inevitably lead to a de facto national curriculum. 
• Infiltrate the education offerings of faith-based groups by allowing them to participate in federally-funded tutoring programs if their programs are "secular, neutral and non-ideological." 
• Violate the United States Constitution by stripping control over education away from parents, teachers, local communities and giving it to federal bureaucrats! 
• Ignore the lesson of over thirty years of failure; federal control over the classroom is a recipe for leaving every child behind!

Clearly, Bush’s education plan represents the very best of bi-partisanship in action (please see quote below).

Additional links to articles on this story:

Hate Crimes Wording in H.R. 1

Conservative Leaders angry about Education Bill

Quotes of the Week

"In Congress nowadays you have a choice between the evil party and the stupid party. And when a proposal moves forward that is BOTH evil and stupid, we call it ‘bipartisanship.'" 
Quote overheard on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

“Leave no Democrat Behind”
Rep. Jim DeMint’s (R-South Carolina) description of White House negotiations on President Bush’s education plan entitled “Leave no Child Behind.”

Commentary - Col. Nicholson's Bill

May 23, 2001

Col. Nicholson's Bill

By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON -- The dirty little secret about President Bush's education bill is that his top adviser on his top issue doesn't like the thousand-page measure passed by the House on Wednesday. Secretary of Education Roderick Paige has told friends it is a bad bill. His lieutenant, Deputy Secretary-designate Gene Hickok, agrees. 

Paige was urged by an education expert to publicly express his alarm that the White House has acquiesced in ripping the real reforms from the president's original proposal. After all, his fellow Texan presumably could not sack the African-American former Houston school superintendent. Nevertheless, Paige, as a newcomer to national politics, is not about to challenge the president in a four-month-old administration. 

Challenging Bush policies would constitute a profile in courage. The president's team has relentlessly pushed his legislative program. While his tax cut reflects mainstream Republican thinking, Bush on education plays the role of POW Col. Nicholson in "The Bridge on the River Kwai," who became obsessed with building a bridge for the enemy. The prowess of the presidency has been exerted to pass a bill drafted to Democratic specifications. 

This was not what Rod Paige signed up to support. Parental choice and local flexibility, the heart of Bush's plan, have been eliminated, while spending was increased and testing approved. Frail Republican hopes of improving this Nicholson bridge on the House floor were definitively crushed last week by the Bush high command. 

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, received marching orders from the White House. All amendments had to be cleared by his Democratic counterpart -- Rep. George Miller, a 100 percent liberal voter from California. Since Miller never would cross schoolteacher unions, Bush has handed an indirect veto to his bitter foes in the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. 

A House standing committee chairman is not obliged to take orders from presidential staffers. But Boehner, working his way back after being deposed as the Republican conference chairman following the 1998 election, was at their bidding. 

When Boehner shut down conservative amendments, a whip check showed 80 or more Republicans ready to vote against the president's top-priority program. To prevent that catastrophe, a few amendments were permitted for this week's two-day debate. 

But not many. An amendment to substitute the president's original bill was not permitted; it might have been adopted. Permission was granted to offer the Senate's Straight A's provision for a demonstration project granting flexibility to local schools, but that proposal (sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy) is a pale version of Bush's original idea. What's more, the president is not for it -- and all Miller-opposed amendments. After being summoned to the White House Tuesday night, its sponsor -- Republican Rep. Jim DeMint of South Carolina -- agreed to withdraw the amendment. 

Conservative Republican House members who the past eight years yearned for a Republican president find Bush is a mixed blessing. They are awed by his power. Old friends, like the Christian Coalition, abandon them on the education bill. Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan was startled when notified that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) will score as negative a vote for Hoekstra's amendment against annual federal testing. 

Since Paige and his unconfirmed colleagues have been dealt out, who convinced the president to build this bridge for the enemy? Republican House members finger two White House aides brought from Texas: Margaret LaMontagne and Sandy Kress. 

How much LaMontagne is out of touch with Republican cultural values can be judged by her reaction, on C-SPAN last week, to census data showing a decline in the traditional family. "So what?" she asked. Kress, who was a Democratic activist in Dallas backing Michael Dukakis for president when I first met him, told me Tuesday the White House did not support even Kennedy's version of Straight A's because "to have a bloodbath on the House floor is not worth it." 

George Miller, who normally eats Republicans for breakfast, and other liberal Democrats paraded to House microphones to praise what's left of the president's bill. Republican financial donors gathering at the vice president's residence Monday night recognized the enemy's bridge. They cheered Dick Cheney's mention of the president's tax and energy programs; his reference to the education bill was greeted with deadly silence. 

©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Source:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20010523.shtml

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org