Washington goes to work
Tom Bethell
Washington The United States Congress reconvened last week, after a welcome five week absence. The lawmakers were scarcely missed. In earlier decades, when the nation was less subjected to government, the legislature did not meet for months on end. The steamy Washington heat held the Congressmen at bay throughout the summer. But then one day air conditioning arrived and, at about the same time, arguments that the legislature should capture and redistribute larger and larger slices of the national income began to prevail. Today it is with a sense of apprehension that the self-reliant citizen must view the return of Congressmen to their ornate chambers.
I ventured up to Capitol Hill to observe the reassembled legislators in action on their first day back. Several hundred smartly suited Congressmen swarmed about the House of Representatives grappling each Other by the elbow, shaking hands, one congratulating another until a third even more important came into view; with small Clusters scheming and whispering conspiratorially on the outskirts of the Chamber. (Although watching from a balcony, I tapped my breast pocket to make sure that my wallet was still with me.) Finally, after a tremendous amount of gavelling and cries of 'Order!' from the podium, a tolerable decibel level was reached, the television cameras were switched on (you can watch it all at home now if you have the appropriate cable TV channel), and the Proceedings began.
Representative James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin boldly proposed to cut off all further funds from the Federal Legal Services Corporation, a government-funded agency which helps to keep lawyers off the unemployment rolls, and also helps low income people to cope with 'the law', including some of the laws that Congress itself passes. 'It appears to me that the Legal Services Corporation would be a good place to save almost a quarter of a billion dollars,' said Mr Sensenbrenner, reminding the House that spending was once again growing of its own accord, and budget deficits were ballooning (with such deficits now perceived as causing the high interest rates).
Most of the Congressmen seemed to take no notice but went on animatedly plotting and murmuring in small groups outside the camera's line of vision. Representative Tom Railsback of Illinois then inquired if 'we believe that the poor people in this country are entitled to equality of justice?' And Representative Peter Roding of New Jersey Observed that 'a 241 million dollar annual investment for 30 million of our more powerless and vulnerable citizens is a modest investment.'
A family of four is below the official 'poverty line' if it earns less than 8414 dollars annually. But most US welfare consists of in-kind services — such as food stamps, health care, rent subsidies and legal aid itself — which are not included in computing family income for the purposes of poverty statistics. Thus the 30 million figure cited by Roding is far too high.
The amendment to abolish legal aid was finally put to the vote. As expected it was soundly defeated, 272-122. The number of people who 'need' legal aid may be disputed, but the number of lawyers employed by Legal Services is 6000. And approximately half of all Congressmen and Senators are lawyers, too. So it is possible that, in preserving this programme, Congress was merely looking after its own, in the guise of helping the poor.
I hurried across to the Senate chamber, which was almost completely deserted. Senators Bennett Johnston of Louisiana and Lowell Weicker of Connecticut opposed one another across the aisle dividing Democrats and Republicans. Johnston was attempting to break Weicker's filibuster (carried over from July) in favour of busing. The conservatives have finally mounted a serious effort to prevent the Justice Department from ordering the busing of school children to achieve a better racial 'balance' in state schools. Weicker (and a few allies), using the old conservative tactic of holding the floor with lengthy speeches until the opposition runs out of patience or time, are trying to keep the buses rolling, apparently believing that it would be 'unconstitutional' for busing to be halted.
Also present in the chamber was the elaborately coiffed Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, his silvery blue-rinse bow wave hair-do perfectly in place; and Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, who that day had sternly (but unavailingly) com manded the New York stock market to be more responsive to President Reagan's economic programme. The 96 remaining Senators were nowhere to be seen. Perhaps they were spending one last day at the beach.
The anti-busing forces are bound to win this battle before too long. Senator Johnston pointed out that busing was caus ing more and more white children to leave the state schools, thus increasing black percentages and 'resegregating' the schools.
Machiavellian right-wingers have known this for years and have quietly hoped that busing will continue, because it is causing private school attendance to increase, so creating political pressure for tax credits for private education.
The wrangle over busing has arisen precisely because, in this matter as in many others, the legislative branch has allowed its jurisdiction to be pre-empted by the judiciary; the Supreme Court has rushed in to fill the perceived legislative vacuum, with the encouragement of liberals who have always known that their agenda of social change, social experiments in the schools, equality, abortion, etcetera, was far more likely to be implemented by the branch of government that doesn't have to face the electorate.
Across the street, in one of the Senate office buildings, the new Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O'Connor faced the Senate Judiciary Committee in confirmation hearing. (That's where the Senators were; the proceedings were being televised, and all Senators were present and correct.) There has been some controversy surroun ding O'Connor's appointment, not because she is the first woman to be appointed, but because she cast pro-abortion votes while in the Arizona legislature. Now she told the Senators that she was 'opposed' to abortion (and to busing), but the more important issue underlying the hearing was the aforementioned matter of jurisdiction. She pointed out that her views on particular issues matter less than her 'view that the proper role of the judiciary is one of interpreting and applying the law, not making it.' Mrs O'Connor is the first person with legislative experience appointed to the court for 42 years. She is therefore in a good posi tion to know that when laws are not passed there is usually a very good reason for it, and that it is probably unwise for the judiciary to intervene with a 'law' of its own. Let's hope so, anyway. Otherwise there soon will be no end to the number of laws, and the number of lawyers needed to explain them.
Previous page
