 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 20 July 2001 | Vol. II, No. 65 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 20 July 2001 | Vol. II, No. 65 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
By Greg Moeller, Constitution Party Regional Co-Chairman - Central States
President Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" proposal seeks to put churches and faith based organizations on the federal dole as subcontractors for federal social welfare programs. Much criticism has been leveled at the proposal from those who are greatly concerned about government control of the church. Many of the same people are also concerned that funding from the federal government will serve to corrupt the church by making it reliant on unconstitutionally obtained government money rather than the freewill giving of supporters and faithful believers.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to be in the business of social welfare or redistribution of wealth to begin with and that should be reason enough to stand against this expansion of its foray into social engineering. However, the details of the legislation being considered by the Congress are now emerging and they don't look pretty.
One of the big baits thrown to those concerned about Bush's Faith Based Initiatives has been the promise by Bush that religious organizations would not have to change the "religious character" of their organization. A lot of talk has been made about how faith-based approaches to social problems have proven to be more successful. However, this fact has nothing to do with whether it is either a good or constitutional idea to have the federal government fund such endeavors. The initial attempts to control the activities being funded are already in the bill that will be considered by Congress shortly. If it were enacted, it would seem there would be no end to the strings that the government will attach to such funding in the future. Consider the following excerpt from HR7, the "Community Solutions Act of 2001."
"No funds provided through a grant or contract to a religious organization to provide assistance under any program described...shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization." --From the text of HR7
Last time I checked prayer was worship. Teaching people about Biblical principles that would help them succeed in their lives and get out of the problems they may be facing is instruction. Encouraging people to trust in God is indeed "proselytization." For those religious based organizations choosing to receive federal funding, such "insignificant" things such as these will have to be eradicated from their funded social welfare activities.
This portion of HR7 clearly violates the 1st Amendment mandate upon Congress that states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." --From the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
HR7 clearly prohibits the free exercise of religion in the carrying out of social welfare related programs by churches and faith based organizations that would receive funding under this bill, but such laws are not allowed by the Constitution of the United States. There are no exceptions to this First Amendment prohibition upon the lawmaking powers of Congress. The plain text of the Constitution makes clear that they are to make no law, not even one, which prohibits the free exercise of religion in any way. On this point alone, HR7 is patently unconstitutional.
I guess the federal version of a "Faith-Based" program is one that has no prayer, Biblical guidance or encouragement to trust in God in it. Is that your idea of a "Faith-Based program? In violation of the First Amendment, the bill demands that if organizations are to receive funding, religious organizations must separate their social welfare programs from their religious activities including worship and instruction. However, if that is so, then are they any longer "faith-based"? HR7 is explicitly clear that no instruction, worship or proselytization shall occur in any church or faith-based organization program that receives federal funding. Such organizations are commanded to eradicate such things from the program that is federally funded and keep things like prayer, worship, spiritual instruction and godly encouragement separate from that program.
"If the religious organization offers such an activity, it shall be voluntary for the individuals receiving services and offered separate from the program funded under subsection." --From the text of HR7
The Bill then goes on to require that any religious organization to take such grant money must sign a certificate that it will not include sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization in any of what they do which is funded in part or in whole by federal funds. Was this not the same hook that has placed the public schools under the thumb of federal mandates and has driven all mention of Biblical teaching out of most public schools?
"A certificate shall be signed by such organizations and filed with the government agency that disbursed the funds that gives assurance the organization will comply with this subsection." --From the text of HR7
HR7 also mandates that any religious organization that is funded by these provisions cannot discriminate in carrying out the program on the basis of religion, a religious belief or a refusal to hold a religious belief. This means, for example that if a church is operating a social welfare program that is even partially funded by the federal government and militant homosexuals who have no desire to change want to participate and receive assistance from the program that the church is administering, that the church cannot refuse to provide them "assistance." The same thing would go for people of any religion, including those who actively participate in witchcraft, Satanism, etc. Note that the church would be forced to provide them assistance. They would not have a choice and remain in compliance with what they have agreed to do. The same would apply for those who are unrepentant former members of their church who are guilty of serious violations of Biblical principles. The church could not refuse to provide them "assistance."
"A religious organization providing assistance through a grant or contract under a program...shall not discriminate, in carrying out the program, against an individual...on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief." --From the text of HR7
The same thing even applies even to religious organizations receiving indirect funding, such as certificates or vouchers. (Consider this the next time you think about whether it is a good idea for the federal government to issue education vouchers for private school use.) Sooner or later, with government funding comes government control and regulation. In this case, it is sooner rather than later.
"A religious organization providing assistance through a voucher, certificate, or other form of indirect disbursement under a program described...shall not discriminate, in carrying out the program, against an individual...on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief." --From the text of HR7
As icing on the cake, HR7 provides people who believe they have been "discriminated against" by a subcontractor of these federal programs direct access to the federal courts, bypassing the checks and balances of state and local jurisdictional judicial review. HR7 is full of the terms "contractor" and "subcontractor" because organizations that are funded under these provisions by the federal government, including religious ones, are considered contractors or subcontractors of the federal government. Are churches supposed to be working for and representing the government, or are they supposed to be working for and representing God and the faithful believers who they are supposed to be serving? In this case, working as a contractor for the federal government may end up putting a church directly in federal court if someone working for the church "instructs" someone Biblically, prays with anyone or encourages anyone to trust in the Lord while serving in a capacity which is linked to the churches federally funded program, even if it is only partially funded by the government. In considering the following excerpt of HR7, remember that a government contractor is carrying out a program for the government and in many respects the work performed by them is viewed as work performed by the government itself. In this light a lawsuit filed for discrimination on, say, "religious" grounds, will likely include the person who supposedly "discriminated", the organization which was the contractor and the federal, state or local government agency itself under whose provisions the program is administered. Under this provision it is not hard to realize that local, county and state courts would (unconstitutionally) not have primary jurisdiction over deciding such matters.
"A party alleging that the rights of the party under this section have been violated by a State or local government may bring a civil action pursuant to section 1979 against the official or government agency that has allegedly committed such violation. A party alleging that the rights of the party under this section have been violated by the Federal Government may bring a civil action for appropriate relief in Federal district court against the official or government agency that has allegedly committed such violation." --From the text of HR7
There are also aspects of HR7 that State and local governments should be genuinely concerned about. HR7 has a provision in it that allows any person who objects to the "religious nature" of an organization providing a (directly or indirectly) federally funded social welfare service to go to the federal, state or local government under whom the program is overseen by and demand to have assistance given them that is not religious in nature. However, according to HR7, the assistance cannot be of any lesser value than that offered by the religious organization. So, for example, if a church in a small town offers an after school sports program or a day care that is federally funded (maybe the only ones in town), and a person objects to the religious nature of the organization providing it, will the local government or the state have to fund and develop an entirely separate and additional sports or day care program that is in no way inferior to that which the church is providing in order to be in compliance with HR7? If they do not do so due to lack of local interest or additional funding, will they be left open for a federal lawsuit?
"If an individual...has an objection to the religious character of the organization from which the individual receives, or would receive, assistance funded under any program...the appropriate Federal, State, or local governmental entity shall provide to such individual...within a reasonable period of time after the date of such objection, assistance that-- (A) is an alternative, including a nonreligious alternative, that is accessible to the individual; and (B) has a value that is not less than the value of the assistance that the individual would have received from such organization." --From the text of HR7
Considering the fact that this bill is blatantly unconstitutional and has so many restrictive provisions in its text, why would there not be an almost universal outcry for its defeat by churches and faith-based organizations nationwide? It's very simple. I call it "legislative bribery." A common practice that is employed to get bill passed is to include separate provisions in a bill that will provide benefit to the opponents of a bill so as to get them to sign on to the bill even though they otherwise would object to it. HR7 fulfills this in spades. You see, HR7 is about money, but not just about federal money. Although laws dealing with tax code and charitable contributions are an entirely separate matter to consider, changes to the tax code which would likely yield an increase in charitable contributions are included in HR7, to be voted upon as a whole along with the other unconstitutional stuff. (I do not have the time to deal with them in detail here, but I imagine you would not be surprised if they were not all positive would you?) HR7 has provisions that include changes to the caps of certain corporate charitable contributions and allowing tax free disbursements from IRA accounts by those over 70 1/2 to certain IRS defined types of charitable organizations. So why not vote on and consider these things separately? It is very simple to understand if you understand the methods politicians have previously used to get horrible legislation passed. Voting on them separately would not serve to silence some of the normal critics of HR7 with a bribe of tax incentives and greater income possibilities both from the federal government and the private sector. So why oppose it? Because the bill, in the end, is unconstitutional and seeks to give the federal government even more power and influence over churches and faith-based organizations.
The promoters of this legislation and concept may have had good intentions, but it is not enough to mean well, we need to adhere to what is right. The bottom line is that this entire idea of putting churches and faith based organizations to be subcontractors for federal social welfare programs is a horrible one. If implemented and commonly accepted across the nation, President Bush's ironically named "Faith Based Initiatives" may do more to undermine and destroy the real sources of genuine charity and help than Lyndon Johnson's ill-fated socialism-based "War on Poverty" ever did. However, instead of just making whole communities of people financially dependent on government welfare money, it will serve to undermine the spiritual foundation of those communities by sticking the needle of addictive government money in the arm of churches and gradually transforming them from being independently governed and reliant on God to being regulated by and reliant upon the government.
It is ironic that the federal government, whose parasitic affect on the wages of millions of Americans has drained away the economic abundance that people used to give to churches and faith-based organizations is now is trying to convince us that what needs to be done is to allow its jurisdiction to expand to, in essence, control the activities of the church by funding and regulation.
If the advocates of this bill are truly concerned about churches and faith-based organizations receiving more funding, then they should instead put forth legislation to reduce the size and scope of the federal government by cutting it down to constitutional size and seek to eliminate the income tax, without which the federal government can fulfill its constitutional functions, and without which the federal government operated for the majority of our nation's history. If people once again get to keep the money they earn, they will once again have an abundance of available financial resources to freely fund the churches, faith based institutions and private charitable organizations of their choice.
It is not too late to fend off this attack upon the spiritual foundations of our nation. HR7 is due to be put to a vote very soon in the U.S. House, and even if it passes, the Senate will have to pass it as well. Take the time today to call, fax or e-mail your U.S. Congressmen and Senators. Tell them that federal funding of churches and faith-based institutions is a bad idea and to oppose HR7. Please take the time to do what you can do to turn back this attempt to expand the federal government's jurisdiction.
[ Constitution Party ]
Look for Rep. Lindsey Graham to make several important appearances at the White House in the coming weeks as the Bush team has decided to let bygones be bygones and fully endorse Graham's run for the South Carolina Senate seat currently held by Sen. Strom Thurmond.
"We think Strom is going to make it to the next election," says a White House political aide. "And even though we'd like to keep Graham sweating for his support of John McCain in the presidential election, he's clearly the man to fill the seat. We might as well make it clear to both parties down there that Lindsey is the president's and the national party's choice."
TCN Comment:
We have met and talked to Lindsey Graham and found him to be a conservative, but he has big shoes to fill and a trip farther to the right to replace Strom Thurmond.
[ Washington Prowler ]
*** Like Clinton, Signs Waiver To Helms-Burton Law
*** Administration Is More Talk Than Action
Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes public abuse and corruption, today strongly criticized President George W. Bush for abandoning his pledge to Cuban-Americans to toughen sanctions toward Fidel Castro's Cuba by allowing U.S. interests to sue foreign interests which benefited and still benefit from Castro's illegal seizure of American property over 40 years ago. During the primary campaign, then Governor Bush promised not to appease Castro by signing a waiver to the Helms-Burton law, which would allow for American interests to sue foreign interests over the illegal confiscation of their property in Cuba.
President Bush's decision to follow Clinton's lead in appeasing Castro coincides with his past diffidence toward the Elian Gonzalez scandal and his current refusal to entertain an indictment of Castro for the murder of members of Brothers To The Rescue by Castro's pilots.
"No amount of photo-op parties at The White House with Cuban-American leaders will mask the hard fact that President Bush thus far has talked a good game but taken few, if any, actions to strengthen the American commitment to overthrow the illegal Castro regime in Cuba. Sadly, the President's appeasement towards Castro is a bit like his approach to government corruption - all talk and no action," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
Judicial Watch represents Cuban-American interests who have sued former Clinton Administration officials over the INS' illegal raid on Elian Gonzalez's relatives and neighborhood and an INS agent who blew the whistle on obstruction of justice and prejudice by the INS Miami Field Office, among other matters, on behalf of the Cuban-American and Hispanic communities.
[ Judicial Watch ]
"I would suggest to you that campaign finance regulation is like Frankenstein's monster ... well-intentioned, but hopelessly misguided and ultimately irredeemable, yet impossible to kill, and creating havoc wherever it goes." - Professor and Federal Elections Commissioner (FEC) Bradley A. Smith
[ Reason magazine, July 2001 ]
GOP Senators talked a good game about fighting Tom Daschle and the Democrats after they took control of the Senate. Sadly, that is still just talk.
Just as the Republicans failed to maximize their control of the Senate under Trent Lott, now they are caving under the onslaught of Daschle, Kennedy and friends:
** The Democrats rammed through their version of the patients' rights bill with little GOP resistance before July 4. The vote was 59-36. This version will encourage costly lawsuits against HMOs and cause insurance costs to soar. Employers will have a harder time covering their employees' medical expenses, making medical insurance more difficult to obtain.
President Bush understandably opposed this bill, yet Republicans barely fought its passage.
** Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle threatened to cancel the July 4 recess if Republicans blocked this bill. Not a single Republican challenged him to follow through on his threat.
** Olympia Snowe, a Republican senator from Maine, proposed a union-friendly amendment that undermined President Bush's position on employers' liability for health plans.
** Despite President Bush's concerns about the Democrat bill, key GOP senators skipped out on the final vote, including Minority Leader Trent Lott.
If Senate Republican leaders don't start taking the Democrats seriously right now, the Democrats will grab for more power -- and get it.
Tell the GOP Senate leaders to stop letting the Democrats push them around. President Bush can't advance his conservative agenda for America if Republican senators continue to retreat from Democrats.
E-mail, write or call Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott and Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles. Tell them to start fighting the Senate Democrats now!
Senator Trent Lott, Senate Minority Leader
487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-6253
Fax: 202-224-2262
E-mail: senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
Senator Don Nickles, Senate Minority Whip
133 Senate Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
Web Contact Form: http://www.senate.gov/~nickles/contact/contact.cfm
[ 60 Second Activist ]
Plan Is Criticized by Customers, Congress
By Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post Staff Writer
The U.S. Postal Service is staring at a $2 billion deficit this year, yet the postmaster general has told its top managers they could see performance bonuses of up to 25 percent of their salaries.
"This year our productivity is up," Postmaster General John E. Potter said in a July 3 letter to 900 senior executives. "By pulling together, we can minimize our loss and earn additional pay for the performance achieved."
The USPS was criticized earlier this year when it paid out $197 million in bonuses, or incentives, as the Postal Service calls them, despite a $199 million deficit for last year. But this would be the first time the agency, a self-supporting government monopoly, would be granting bonuses in the face of such monumental deficits.
"It would be the biggest mistake the Postal Service could ever make," said Gene Del Polito, president of the Association for Postal Commerce, which represents direct-marketing and catalogue companies. "You cannot raise rates, run deficits and at the end of the day, tell people you're going to give bonuses. If they wanted to kill the prospect that Congress would ever attend to their needs, this would do it."
In fact, Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) has submitted a nonbinding House resolution urging that bonuses should not be given when the Postal Service is in the red or has boosted rates. He did so after several postal employees in his hometown of Farmville said they felt it unfair and several small business owners, who have seen their rates rise recently, said the bonuses would be unjustified.
"Here's a business that's not going to show a profit and yet it wants to give bonuses," Jones said. "To the man or woman that's got to pay the rates, that's unacceptable."
The Postal Service has increased postage rates twice this year, but USPS officials are still projecting a deficit of $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion, blaming higher fuel costs and increasing competition from online services.
It considered cutting Saturday delivery, but retreated when Congress balked. USPS also has teamed with FedEx to deliver air mail, sponsored the Tour de France, put ads on mailboxes and ventured into online bill payment, all in the name of trying to meet its congressional mandate to break even over time. The Postal Service is not given federal funds for operations, although it receives some indirect subsidies.
Postal officials have expressed frustration that the 1970 law that created the current postal service structure does not allow officials to respond nimbly to changing market forces, for instance, by changing rates quickly (that normally takes at least a year).
The organization has 202,000 vehicles and operates 17,000 flights a day. "When you have a fuel spike, you're not able to respond, and it's just impossible not to have the deficit that you have," said USPS spokesman Gregrick A. Frey.
According to postal officials, as many as 84,000 non-union managers could be eligible for the bonuses if they meet goals of customer service, employee safety and productivity. The targets, and the rewards, vary according to region and position. The money would be placed in a reserve account, and only one-third of it would be paid out at a time. In the bonus payment made earlier this year, the average executive payout was 10 percent of salary.
Postal officials defended the "pay-for-performance" system. It does not amount to bonuses or a form of profit-sharing, they said, but offers incentives to improve service and efficiency. "Without them, the deficit could be considerably worse," Frey said.
Worse than $2.4 billion? "Yes!" he said. "The incentives are forcing managers to pay attention to productivity, safety and time standards. Would you prefer that we have no standards and just get automatic cost-of-living increases? I don't think so."
This year, despite slight growth in volume, more addresses are receiving mail and the number of hours worked has fallen. That translates into higher productivity, Potter said. "We need to build on this momentum, continue gaining efficiency and improve service performance," he said.
But Del Polito said the postmaster general's letter extolling the prospect of bonuses for managers amounts to "patting them on the back for doing activities that they should have done 12 months ago."
USPS's Frey said linking the bonuses to the bottom line imposes a private-sector model on a public-sector organization. "The dilemma is not so much in the incentive program{cedil}" he said. "If Congress wants to evaluate us in a for-profit context, then they need to change the law" to give the Postal Service more flexibility to control prices and costs.
However, analyst Charles Guy, a former Postal Service economist, said USPS officials have set an artificially low productivity target, allowing them to trigger the bonus without breaking even financially.
In arguing for the last rate increase, USPS officials projected they could hit productivity gains of 2 percent, he said. But in this year's budget, the goal is 0.7 percent. Officials are hitting the 2 percent goal, but to break even, the agency would need to reach targets of 3 to 4 percent gains, Guy said.
"So they're going to increase productivity 2 percent, get their big bonuses and still end up losing the $2 billion they'd projected," he said. "The whole thing is self-imposed."
[ © 2001 The Washington Post Company ]
"A new study finds handgun crime rose by 40% in the two years after Britain banned the weapons in 1997. 'The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals,' the BBC reports."
[ Best of the Web ]
One in five American teenagers doesn't know the answer to this grade school history question: From what country did America declare its independence? Twenty-two percent of those who responded to the survey commissioned by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation did not know the answer was England. Fourteen percent thought it was France. 'When you look at these numbers, it means that more than 5 million U.S. teenagers don't understand the true meaning of Independence Day,' said Colin Campbell, president of the foundation that runs Colonial Williamsburg, the restored 18th-century capital. The nationwide telephone survey included 1,020 youngsters ages 12-17.
[ Associated Press ]
According to several White House sources, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge is lobbying hard with pal President Bush for the vice presidential job should Dick Cheney's heart problems continue to complicate the administration's political agenda. "Ridge wanted the job before the convention in Philly and he still wants the job," says one political aide inside the Old Executive Office Building. "He wants a shot at it if Cheney can't make it to the finish line."
Among those pols interested in the No. 2 job, the thinking goes that Cheney most likely would be bumped from the Republican ticket in '04, making way for a new, younger candidate to carry the Republican torch for years to come. But that's not how things would necessarily turn out. "Guys like Ridge and [George] Pataki and even [Frank] Keating may think they have a shot at the veep job," says a Republican National Committee fundraiser. "But there is only one man who is acceptable and electable nationally for Bush to add to the ticket and that is Secretary of State [Colin] Powell."
Besides, the fundraiser adds, "all this talk is unrealistic. People should appreciate what they have right now and be glad we're in power and enjoy it."
[ Washington Prowler ]
TCN Comment: Running Powell on the ticket would be a sure way to limit GW to a single term. Powell is a liberal and an extreme globalist. The liberal leanings of the Bush administration already have conservative Republicans looking toward the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party as being more representative of their ideology. A Bush - Powell ticket would be all it took to push them over the line. Come to think of it, it might be the best thing GW and the Republican Party could do for the country.
"As long as Republicans allow their political opponents to frame the terms of the debate they'll not only lose the debate, but the battle over policy. It's time the GOP quit acting ashamed of its platform and afraid of its shadow and resurrected its dedication to freedom." --David Limbaugh
*** But Chairman Wolf works to kill several pro-gun amendments
The expected shoot out occurred yesterday in the House of Representatives. Earlier this week, Gun Owners of America alerted us to possible amendments that would be offered to the Commerce-Justice-State bill (H.R. 2500).
Well, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) offered his amendment requiring the FBI to keep gun buyers' names for 90 days. Thankfully, the House listened to grassroots gun owners and shot down the Moran amendment by a vote of 268-161. You can see how your Representative voted by going to http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=244 on the internet.
Other Representatives came forward with gun-related amendments as well. And in almost every case, appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) used his official influence to kill each one. (The one amendment he "allowed" was an anti-gun amendment offered by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas. More on this below.) Here's a summary of what happened yesterday:
*** FBI Retention of Gun Buyers' Names
As mentioned above, the House defeated the Moran amendment which sought to keep information on gun owners for 90 days. Attorney General John Ashcroft wants the FBI to keep gun buyers' names for only 24 hours.
One member, Rep. Brian Kerns (R-IN), wanted to offer an amendment that would have prohibited the FBI's "retention of any information" resulting from an instant background check. After having drafted his amendment, Kerns announced on the House floor that he would not offer the provision -- a decision made in deference to Chairman Wolf.
*** Putting a Halt to Global Gun Control
There were two attempts made to stop the U.S. from participating in global gun control. The UN has been meeting during the past two weeks to discuss gun restrictions that every nation should follow. Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) offered an amendment specifying that no U.S. funds could be used to implement gun control recommendations adopted at the UN gun control conference. But Chairman Wolf stood up and "assured" Rep. Bartlett that his concerns could be taken care of without enacting legislation. As a result, Rep. Bartlett withdrew his amendment.
However, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was not to be denied. He offered an amendment to pull the U.S. out of the United Nations and cited the current gun control conference in New York as reason enough to boycott the international gun control organization.
"There have been explicit proposals made at the United Nations to have worldwide gun control," Paul said. "No, they are not taking guns away from the government. They are taking guns away from civilians. If anybody understands our history, they will know that taking guns from civilians is exactly opposite of what the Founders intended."
Despite the fact that Chairman Wolf spoke against his provision -- and despite the fact that the Democratic leadership spoke against him as well -- Rep. Paul insisted on putting everyone on record. His amendment failed, but you can see how your Representative voted by going to http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2001&rollnumber=245 on the internet.
*** Chairman Was Only Crying "Wolf;" Supports Lock-up Your Safety Programs After All
Well, it turns out the powerful subcommittee chairman (and GOA D-rated) Rep. Frank Wolf was not opposed to every gun amendment, and in the end, allowed one anti-gun provision to be tacked onto the bill by a voice vote.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) offered the amendment to protect the ability of states to keep pushing "lock up your safety" trigger lock initiatives. For example, in her home state of Texas, the administration funded the give-away of thousands of trigger locks -- although about 20,000 of them were recalled after defects were discovered.
Many observers expected Wolf to rise and speak against the Lee amendment, in the same way he had worked against so many others.
Instead, Wolf said, "I rise to simply say that we accept the gentlewoman's amendment." The anti-gun amendment then passed without a recorded vote.
[ GOA ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.