Terrorist Attacks Change Congressional Agenda

By Douglas Johnson, NRLC Federal Legislative Director

WASHINGTON (Oct. 8, 2001) -- The September 11 terrorist attacks have changed the agenda of Congress, at least for the rest of this year.

Legislation dealing with many important issues has been set aside for the time, as Congress concentrates on bills dealing with national security and with the economic disruptions growing out of the attacks.

In addition, lawmakers are working to pass the 13 appropriations bills that are needed to fund federal agencies for fiscal year 2002, which began on October 1. The government is currently operating on a temporary funding measure that expires on October 18.

Many lawmakers wish to adjourn for the year as soon as the appropriations process is completed.

Since the attacks, the leaders of both parties have striven to present a picture of national unity to the American public and to other nations. To that end, they have largely avoided open conflicts on contentious issues. The mood was described by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, in a quote in the September 17 issue of the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call: "There is a feeling that this is not a time to have disagreement on issues. All those issues for the moment are suspended while the spotlight shines on this emergency and this catastrophe."

Human Cloning Ban

The desire for unity and the widespread hope for early adjournment - - perhaps before the end of October - - have worked to the disadvantage of pro-life forces on the issue of human cloning.

On July 31, the House passed the NRLC-backed Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 2505) to ban human cloning. Before September 11, NRLC and other pro-life groups were pressing for the Senate to take up the bill. (See "Will Senate Democratic Leader Act to Prevent Human Embryo Farms?" August NRL News, page 1.) But since September 11, congressional preoccupation with the immediate crisis has effectively foreclosed getting the Senate to take up a new issue this year.

The chief sponsor of the Senate version of the ban (S. 790), pro-life Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Ks.), has indicated that he will push hard to obtain Senate action on the measure as soon as feasible.

Some other important pro-life measures will also have to wait until next year. These include the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 503), which was approved by the House on April 26 and is awaiting Senate action, and the Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 476), which was the subject of a hearing in the House on September 6.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

On some other issues, the prevalent desire to defer conflict has worked to the advantage of the pro-life side - - for example, on the issue of embryonic stem cell research.

In August, President Bush announced that he would authorize federal funding of research on certain already-existing embryonic stem cell lines, but that he would veto any bill to fund research that would require the destruction of human embryos. This policy was criticized as much too restrictive by Democratic congressional leaders and some Republicans, including pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). (See "Lawmakers Opposed to Bush Policy Appear Uncertain on Next Move," September NRL News, page 23.)

Since the terrorist attacks, it appears that most advocates of federal funding of research that would kill human embryos have concluded that they should defer any legislative challenge to the President's policy until next year. However, it is still possible that some lawmakers could attempt to reopen the issue during upcoming consideration of the Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

Perennial Issues

Despite the general desire among lawmakers to avoid new controversies, some pro-abortion members of Congress have not shied away from pressing their positions on several perennial abortion-related issues.

Appropriations bills, including the pro-life restrictions attached to them, last for only one year.

On appropriations bills for the new fiscal year, leaders of the House Appropriations Committee have included the same pro-life provisions that have been carried on those bills in past years - - for example, the Hyde Amendment.

However, as of NRL News deadline on October 8, the Senate had already removed long-standing pro-life provisions from two of the new appropriations bills.

One of the provisions deleted in the Senate prohibits funding of abortions by the Bureau of Prisons - - even though that policy was reaffirmed by the House on July 17 by a vote of 253-169 (see roll call, pages 24-25). The other deleted provision prohibits coverage of abortions in the health plans that cover federal employees. Four other appropriations bills that traditionally contain pro-life provisions are still awaiting action in the Senate, and some of those provisions may also be weakened or removed.

NRLC and others on the pro-life side will fight for retention of the traditional pro-life provisions in the final versions of these bills, which will be hammered out in House-Senate conference committees during the weeks ahead.

Another attack from the pro-abortion side occurred on September 25, when pro-abortion Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca.) offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 2586) to remove a long-standing ban on performance of abortions at overseas military facilities. The Sanchez Amendment failed, 199-217 (see roll call, pages 24-25).

Born-Alive Infants

Both houses have passed "patients' bill of rights" bills (regulating HMOs). If and when lawmakers work out differences between the two bills - - and it is still possible that could occur this year - - the final bill ("conference report") should contain the NRLC-backed Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175, S. 1050), since that legislation was attached to both bills. (See "Pro-Life Nurse Fired from Christ Hospital," September NRL News, pages 16-17.)

"Campaign Finance Reform"

NRLC is opposed to certain so-called "campaign finance reform" bills that would restrict the right of citizen groups to communicate with the public about the actions of federal politicians and about actions needed to affect upcoming congressional votes. The chief threat comes from the McCain-Feingold bill (S. 27), which passed the Senate in April, and its House counterpart, the Shays-Meehan bill (H.R. 2356).

Up until the time of the terrorist attacks, Shays-Meehan backers were working to push the bill to the House floor by getting a majority of House members to sign a "discharge petition" on the bill. By September 10, the petition had gathered 209 of the 218 signatures required to force a floor vote this year.

Since the September 11 attacks, however, no additional lawmakers have signed the petition. It does not appear that Democratic leaders will push for debate on this controversial and partisan issue under current circumstances. As a staffer to Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) explained to Congress Daily (Sept. 17), "All of this stuff has gone by the wayside. I don't think there's going to be a rush to the rostrum to sign the discharge petition."

Even Senator John McCain (R-Az.) himself told the Washington Times (Sept. 26), "I can't worry about it right now. I haven't thought about it since [Sept. 11]."

The same Washington Times story quoted House Majority Leader Dick Armey, an opponent of the bill, as saying that Rep. Chris Shays (R-Ct.) had approached him "letting me know we can't go home until we do that [Shays-Meehan bill]." But Armey added, "Before the 11th of September, it ['campaign finance reform'] was the lowest thing on the American radar screen for people outside of Washington, D.C. And my guess is that it is even further lower now than it was then."