A Friendly Amendment

I frequently depend upon the insights of the readers of this diary.

Last Thursday, I wrote that I wasn’t going to repeat the mistake I made 20 years ago of letting money from the settlement with Big Tobacco go to Medicaid, instead of programs that would reduce the number of people who smoke.

My bill this year would create a fund for any monetary damages that the state receives from its lawsuit against the manufacturers and distributors of opioids.

None of the money would go to Medicaid.

Josh Sharfstein, the former Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, emailed me:

Medicaid was wrong for tobacco because the money went not just to [smoking] cessation services but to pay bills for all tobacco related consequences.

Bottom line—I would recommend modifying your provision to saying the money can be used for Medicaid, but only for new services, greater reimbursements, or the their care improvements…not to displace existing spending.

I told the chair of the committee that will act on my bill, Delegate Maggie McIntosh, that I would consider Josh’s proposal a friendly amendment.

A Mistake

I learn from my mistakes.

In 2000, when a settlement was looming in the lawsuit brought by the states against the tobacco industry, I introduced a bill creating a separate fund for the monetary damages Maryland would receive.

My legislation required that the money be spent to address the harms caused by smoking, most importantly persuading teenagers not to start smoking and helping adults stop smoking.

We also allowed the fund to be used for Medicaid costs related to smoking.

That was a mistake.

Far too much of the money has gone to Medicaid.

Maryland recently entered into a contract with three law firms to sue the pharmaceutical industry to recover damages for the harm caused by opioids.

House Bill 1274 was heard today in the Appropriations Committee.

It would create a fund to improve access to Naloxone, organize primary and secondary education campaigns to prevent opioid use, and expand access to crisis beds and residential treatment services, among other uses.

None of the money would go to Medicaid.

Meaningful protection and a satisfactory compromise

House Bill 526 would allow medical laboratories to advertise about their tests and procedures.

Attorney General Brian Frosh does not think that the bill offers “meaningful protection to consumers.”

For instance, it does not require that a physician ordering a lab test “be in a bona fide physician-patient relationship with the consumer.”

How do you resolve these differences?

I am the chair of the subcommittee that will consider HB 526.

I will ask the bill’s supporters to meet with lawyers from the AG’s Office.

My subcommittee is not likely to act on this legislation until they’ve reached a satisfactory compromise.

Before I began my testimony

With a fiscal note of $19 million, House Bill 677 will not pass.

I knew that before I began my testimony.

My legislation would provide benefits to individuals who are not eligible for the federal Food Stamps program, now known as SNAP. Two categories of people could be affected: federal workers if there is another shutdown and Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents, as they are identified in federal law.

We can hope that there won’t be another shutdown, but we need to be prepared if there is.

For certain, the Trump Administration supports work requirements for single adults, the ABAWDs.

My concern, and that of many others, is that those requirements will be punitive.

That’s why I also introduced House Bill 415, which would create a pilot program where people on Medicaid can voluntarily seek work.  (Many of these people would also be eligible for SNAP benefits.)

The outcome for both of my bills is unfavorable.

The issues they raise could be dealt with in the budget bill.

That’s why I wrote a budget analyst: “Can you draft committee narrative [for the budget bill] addressing the issues raised by my two bills?  I will then do the legwork of discussing it with the two committees” that have heard my bills.

 

Other people’s input

“It’s not too early to start planning our witnesses for the hearing on our bill.  Below is to get the discussion started.”

I sent that email to the advocates I’m working with on a bill being heard next week.

I proposed two panels of witnesses.

My email had the desired effect.

It prompted a discussion of adding a witness with expertise in an aspect of the issue that

would not be addressed by my two panels.

The broader point: one of the things I’ve learned over my career is that the more you seek other people’s input, the better your end product.

A win for the pretty big bullies and losing the deal

The identical Senate version of my SLAPP bill got an unfavorable report in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee late yesterday.

That means the House bill is dead as well.  Even if the bill is amended, it is now guaranteed unfavorable action in the Senate.

I wrote the people who testified for the bill: “Our strategy for next year should be to introduce a bill only in the House and pass it over to the Senate. With the momentum generated by that vote, we will be in a stronger position.”

The big news of the day comes from the borough of Queens: Amazon has decided not to build its HQ2 there in response to neighborhood opposition.

An important part of my job is to represent the legitimate interests of the neighborhoods in my district.  If Amazon wanted to bring 25,000 jobs to Baltimore, I would have fought for more favorable terms but not at the risk of losing the deal.

In another context, part of my obligation on the Pimlico redevelopment is to make sure that all of the nearby neighborhoods actually benefit from the renovation.

Bullies and SLAPPs

“Some pretty big bullies.”

I had used words like meritless, frivolous and intimidating.

Both the witness and I were testifying on behalf of my SLAPP bill.

A SLAPP is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Such lawsuits are often brought by a business against a private citizen, who spoke out against a development proposal in his or her neighborhood.

An exercise of First Amendment rights.

To get the bill passed, we will need to make sure that our proposed changes to the existing SLAPP law are precise and achieve our policy objectives.

In the hallway after our hearing, I discussed potential amendments with the bill’s supporters – lawyers and otherwise.

But when the Judiciary Committee votes on my bill, , I think the delegates will remember that my bill is needed because we’re dealing with “some pretty big bullies.”

Hate Crimes

A hate crime is a criminal act committed because of a certain characteristic of the victim.

Maryland’s hate crimes law dates back to 1988 when House Bill 1095 was enacted. I introduced that bill.

Five years later, I attended the oral argument at the Supreme Court on Wisconsin’s hate crimes statute. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that the law did not violate the First Amendment.

Today I testified in support of House Bill 240.

It is already against the law to threaten to commit a criminal act. My bill would add such crimes to the hate crimes law.

What prompted me to introduce HB 240?

In 2017, bomb threats were emailed to the Jewish Community Centers in the Baltimore and Washington areas.

That email was read in full to the Judiciary Committee today. It was harrowing.

An identical bill failed in the Judiciary Committee last year. Starting tomorrow, I will ask the members what they thought of today’s hearing.

Ghoya and Reggie

Mark Iwry grew up in Mt. Washington.  We’ve known each other since childhood.

Mark’s parents – Sam and Nina Iwry — were born in Poland.

They both escaped the Nazis and fled to Shanghai, where more than 20,000 Jews found refuge.

I asked Mark and his wife Daryl to join me, my mother, and brother Bruce Sunday at the Jewish Refugees and Shanghai exhibit at the Jewish Museum of Maryland.

At lunch beforehand, Mark related that his mother, a hospital administrator, had rescued her future husband after he had been beaten unconscious by a guard who had discovered his  activities in the underground enabling Jewish families to escape from the Nazis to Palestine, Australia, and other safe havens,

The exhibit panels were prepared by the Shanghai Jewish Refugees Museum.

Many told the story of individuals’ time in Shanghai and their joyous return with family decades later.

One made reference to Ghoya, a Japanese official.

“That’s who tortured my father,” Mark told me.

I left the Jewish Museum and headed to Cedardale Road, where Frank Robinson lived in 1966, when he led the Orioles to a World Series championship.

I met the neighborhood “kids” from that era – black and white.

They talked about other Orioles and Colts who lived there – all were black.  It was one of the few integrated neighborhoods in Baltimore.

A story was told about a minor league baseball player who visited Frank.

His mother lived in the neighborhood.

His name was Reggie Jackson.

The MVP of the October 1966 World Series met Mr. October.

 

I highly recommend Samuel Iwry’s autobiography, “To Wear the Dust of War: From Bialystok to Shanhsi to the Promised Land” (available on Amazon)

 

Number 20

Frank Robinson died today.

I had this conversation with him at an Orioles Fantasy Camp.

“I never saw Jackie Robinson play, but you’re the most intense competitor I’ve ever seen. Who taught you that?”

“My high school coach,” Frank responded. “He said, ‘You’re not going to make a great play in the field every game. You’re not going to get a big hit. But you can play 100%.’”

I later learned that in 1966, his first year as an Oriole, Frank and his wife could not find a decent home to rent in segregated Baltimore.

Jerry Hoffberger, the Orioles owner, helped him find a place on Cedardale Avenue in Ashburton.

That house is in my district.

This weekend, I will go there and pay my respects.

  • My Key Issues:

  • Pimlico and The Preakness
  • Our Neighborhoods
  • Pre-Kindergarten
  • Lead Paint Poisoning