2017 Mar 01 — Life can include some curious side trips: emotional, geographic, and political. The United States House of Representatives is recognized as an institution with high regard because of its power to dramatically affect our Nation. These 435 elected people are obliged to be the originators of this country’s tax and financial bills. It has many functional committees to go into depth on specific fields of legislation and ethics. The ethics can be legislated, as on the topics of tort reform affecting everyone and the investigation of another branch of government, in this case inquiring into the potential collaboration of our Chief Executive with a foreign government and other matters.
The people have a curiosity and a genuine need to know more than the conclusion on these issues. The negotiations – what was given and taken – are as significant as a committee’s conclusion. The conclusion may come out of the process as a bill that becomes a law. The give and take are a guide to the interpretation and application of the law – the intention.
Our Judicial Branch is charged with interpreting the law, not on the punctuation and sentence structure, but on the intention of the legislators. That approach by the court is questionable, but the “original intention” is still important to the people in the United States. When living in the world ruled by these laws, people want to comply and conform to realize the image of an organized society that makes a better life for everyone.
The gallery experience
My experience as a public witness began in line at the Rayburn House Office Building with more than 150 other citizens. The House Judiciary Committee meeting was scheduled to start at 10:00 am. We had to pass through a security check. Of course, my case was not totally smooth because I had left my phone in my pocket. The magnetometer picked it up and I had to retrace my steps without the phone in my pocket.
Room 2141 was the Judiciary Committee Room on the third floor for some non-mathematical reason. Perhaps because the architects wanted to start counting with the first floor being labeled “G” for “ground.”
The line to get in was nearly as long as the outside line but did not include the same people because there were concurrent meetings of other House Committees where other people had gone. At least one of the other meetings was on the same topic of an inquiry into the ethics and conflicts of interest of the President.
H.B.1215, “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017” was the first item on the agenda.
Background: In medical malpractice, the plaintiff can sue for economic losses, such as loss of income. Additionally, there can be recovery for non-economic losses, such as pain and suffering. Non-economic settlement can include punitive damages and compensation to make whole the long term effects on their social and family life.
This tort reform bill would, primarily, put a federal maximum on the non-economic settlement a defendant would be liable for. This could protect a defendant from the devastating result of total bankruptcy, even when the offense is causing a death. This also means the survivor of a wrongful death from medical practice could get only $250,000 for the loss of a lifetime of companionship, co-parenting, and other social benefits. The patient/victim and their surviving family from medical malpractice may get an adequate settlement with this cap, but the defendant and the insurance corporation would definitely get a tremendous financial benefit with the loss limitation.
An easily overlooked consequence of this bill becoming law was that it was in conflict with several state constitutions that forbade settlement caps. The Republican committeemen offered no resolution.
There is more than one bias by which to evaluate this result. Business corporations will be more prosperous with the cap limitation. The patient will gain nothing by a limit and may actually be prevented from adequate compensation. True to form, the pro-profit and financial evolutionists of the Republican Party want the cap in place. The minority Democratic Party would like to see every person able to find justice in all cases and situations.
The behavior of those on the Chairman’s left, the liberals, and those on his right, the conservatives, was conspicuous. The Republicans were out of their designated seats and gathered at the perimeter wall as if they wanted to be able to run on short notice. The Democrats appeared to be confident in their position, literally and politically, because they remained calmly in their seats.
There were a couple of comedic and pathetic situations. The Republicans were the instigators. When there were votes on amendments that were coming out close, the Republican Chairman just sat quietly while the Republican members chased down missing members, dragging them from their offices in the building to come in to vote.
Another situation was that more than half of the Republican members were wandering in and out of the rear door to a back room. A Democratic member, Rep. Johnson of Georgia, suggested that there may be some figurative or literal arm-twisting going on in that room. Rep. Issa took offense and complained that Johnson was impugning fellow committeemen. Johnson withdrew his words and then repeated them.
These shenanigans got laughs from the gallery. The Chairman banged his gavel about three times during the meeting to ask the gallery to not react to the humor or anything that the Committee was doing or he might ask the gallery to be cleared. That got another laugh, though the Chairman did not think it was funny. He had, apparently, some serious parliamentary procedures in a process to get his way on the result.
He did. The H.B. 1215 was passed on party lines. Whether it was good or bad for the public had little influence on the votes cast by the Republicans.
At 3:20 pm, the House Resolution 111 was taken up. It was to authorize an inquiry into the potential conflicts of interest for President Trump and to investigate the potential influence of Russia in the 2016 election with the Trump campaign. I had to leave at 3:30 to pick up my grandson from preschool.
The Resolution was defeated by a party-line vote, I learned that evening at home. Again, the Republicans clearly showed that they were afraid of the truth and did not want to chance that their party’s President might be found to be unethical or even criminal.
I find it hard to swallow these mature legislators would succumb to such childish behavior. It has inspired me to be an assertive activist, especially when it comes to electing mature candidates to run my country.
That’s where we stand.
