First Posted: 3/17/2015
MARCH 17, 2015 — We all have things we’d rather not read and don’t have to read — the brochure that comes with the electric bill, the nutrition information for a Little Caesars bacon-wrapped deep dish pizza, “Paradise Lost.” Members of Congress have the same privilege, with one tiny exception: They have a duty to read legislation presented to them before they vote on it.
That comes as news to Senate Democrats. Some of them seem to prefer following the policy of Nancy Pelosi, who, as speaker of the House, argued for a vote on the Affordable Care Act with the famous words: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously for a bill aimed at curbing human trafficking. Then it came to the attention of the panel’s Democrats that it forbids the use of federal funds (including fines paid by sex traffickers) to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.
Democrats accuse Republicans of sneaking the language into the bill without letting them know. But an aide to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chief sponsor, said the restriction was added months ago and Democrats were told. The claims of deception and ignorance, Cornyn said, “are simply untrue.”
It’s really not too much to ask that legislators inform themselves before agreeing to make something the law of the land. “What’s not clear is whether Republicans meant to pull a fast one,” reported Reid Wilson in The Washington Post. “What is clear is that Democrats screwed up.”
Some admit as much. “What do you want me to tell you? We missed it!” Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois told Politico. No kidding. If you don’t read a bill before voting to pass it, though, you kind of deserve what you get.
What they got, by the way, is not the outrage they depict. The Hyde Amendment, which has been part of federal law since 1976 and mostly affects Medicaid recipients, says federal dollars can be used to pay for abortions only in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life. The language in this bill is meant not to expand the scope of that policy but to keep it from being circumvented in this legislation.
Democrats are unhappy because the restriction is in and they lack the votes to remove it on the floor. Nor do they want to go on the record against a bill aimed at combating the evils of human trafficking. So they are blocking a vote — yes, blocking a law to combat human trafficking — in hopes that they can get their way.
Republicans, in turn, have put off the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be attorney general until this legislation is completed. With an Easter recess looming, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday, “If they want to have time to turn to the attorney general bill next week, we need to finish up this human trafficking bill.”
Lynch deserves to be confirmed. She’s a respected, veteran U.S. attorney who has successfully prosecuted terrorism, organized crime and bank fraud. Some opponents have wanted to drag things out to protest her defense of President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. But she appears to be a lock for confirmation whenever it comes to a vote.
Democrats insist it is unfair to punish Lynch, who has already endured a four-month wait to take over the Justice Department. But it’s an obstacle they can easily eliminate. All they have to do is allow a vote on the human trafficking bill, which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have endorsed. …
… Democrats, swallow your pride. Vote to move forward with the human trafficking bill. Then the Senate can get on with approving a new attorney general. And Democrats can resolve never again to vote for a bill they haven’t read.
