After six weeks away, the United States Congress returned to Washington this week for a final push that will last until mid-October when they adjourn for good. Much of their focus in the remaining month or so will be on turning some of the 9/11 Commission recommendations into legislation and passing appropriations bills.
In terms of social issues, the House vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), expected sometime after September 20, will be the most prominent, although others will also be debated and voted on in this highly-charged political season.
The House FMA debate and vote should proceed similarly to the Senate’s attempt in July — with unfortunately the same result expected. Because the FMA seeks to amend the United States Constitution, the threshold for passage is much higher than a simple majority, which is normally all that is required to pass a measure. A constitutional amendment needs the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate before it is sent out to the states for ratification. In July, the Senate was able to muster only 48 of the necessary 60 votes required to end debate before proceeding to the actual amendment, which would have required 67 votes for passage. The U.S. House will need at least 290 votes out of 435 if they wish to pass the amendment — a tall mountain to climb.
Pro-family and religious groups supporting the FMA, as well as gay rights groups opposing the measure, are already gearing-up for the late September battle. FMA supporters will have ample opportunity to provide overwhelming evidence of why marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. Those opposed to the FMA will most likely duck the anthropological, biological, and societal benefits of traditional marriage and instead resort to calling those supporting the measure “hateful homophobes” who don’t want two people who are “in love” to commit themselves to each other regardless of their orientation. Opponents will also speak endlessly about the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and how it should never be amended and also point out that this issue should be “left up to the states” to decide. In the end, it should prove to be an excellent opportunity to discuss the foundational role that marriage plays in our society and at the very least will force House members to vote on the issue.
In addition to the FMA, the House will likely beat back attempts this week by pro-abortion groups to strip out the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) from the appropriations bill that funds the Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services (HHS). The House Appropriations Committee added ANDA to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill in July. This is a measure that (according to a July LifeNews article) “prohibits federal funds from going to any federal, state or local governmental agency that discriminates against health care providers or insurers who do not perform abortions, pay for them or make abortion referrals.” Removal of this measure would end legal protections for Catholic hospitals, which is why pro-abortion groups want it removed from the appropriations bill.
The House will also consider three important tax provisions that will be part of a larger bill. The first is the $1000 child tax-credit extension through 2010. Without this legislation, the child credit will “snap back” to $700 in 2005-2008, and $800 in 2009. The second is an extension of the full marriage penalty relief through 2010, which became law in the 2001 tax bill. Without the pending legislation, the marriage penalty would “snap back” to its current levels from 2005-2009. The final extension is the full 10% tax bracket through 2010, which would “snap back” to cover a smaller group of low income taxpayers without the pending bill.
Finally, the House is also likely to take up the Pledge Protection Act, which Missouri Congressman Todd Akin first introduced back in 2002 after the Ninth District Court of Appeals somehow found that the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The Akin bill simply states that “No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” According to a 2002 Akin press release, the bill is “a simple and effective remedy [which] will prevent lower federal courts from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance.” Akin added that his bill will “do more than merely resolve the controversy over that pledge. It will address a dangerous trend: a judiciary that too often confuses the freedom for religion with freedom from religion.” With 224 other Members of Congress cosponsoring the measure and only 218 needed for passage, it’s difficult to see how this bill won’t pass the House easily.
Over on the Senate side, the main focus before adjournment will be an attempt to once again free the logjam of 13-15 of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees, including, according to one Senate staffer, Bill Pryor and Priscilla Owens. The staffer added that pro-abortion senators have erected a huge roadblock against any pro-life judge proposed by the president by threatening to filibuster their nomination. He also said that those opposing pro-life judicial nominees have developed a disturbing and unyielding position that basically holds that if you firmly believe that abortion is immoral, you are not psychologically able to apply laws as it relates to Roe v. Wade, and in short, you cannot be trusted to be fair and objective.
The Senate requires 60 votes to end debate on any issue and abortion proponents have for the first time in U.S. history used a filibuster to block judicial appointments. Instead of the usual 50 votes required to be nominated, the filibuster threat means that judges now face the daunting task of needing 60 votes to be cleared. While it is likely going to be an uphill battle, the Senate will devote floor time and debate to these judges in an effort to actually get a vote on their nominations.
According to the Committee for Justice, those leading the charge in opposing the judges are Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Senator Patrick Leahy, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sadly, both men are self-described Catholics. These battles over judicial nominees will be a good preview for the ultimate war that will take place in the coming years when the Senate must vote on U.S. Supreme Court nominees because of expected retirements by several justices.
Although most of the attention this fall will be on the presidential election, the U.S. House and Senate will consider some very important pieces of legislation dealing with the sanctity of human life and protection of the family. While faithful pro-life and pro-family proponents won’t win every vote that occurs, it is critical to our democracy that every representative and senator goes on record on these vitally important issues.
St. Thomas More, pray for us.
© Copyright 2004 Catholic Exchange
Craig Richardson is the founder of the recently launched Catholic Action Network, an organization committed to calling Catholics to authentic and faithful citizenship particularly on issues of life and family.
