Lawmaking has often been compared to sausage-making. There are times when sausage-makers might feel insulted.
Take it from someone who has witnessed both processes up close and can tell you watching a young pig become a breakfast side is something that can permanently change your perspective on morning menus. Recent State House actions exemplifying a total disregard for the will of the majority should lead others to exercise menu shifting when next selecting their elected representatives.
This tale requires that you understand what happens when the House and Senate do not agree completely, or in part, on a bill. Should there be a will to bridge that difference, a committee of conference can be called. The concept is simple. Pull together knowable members from both houses and work out a compromise. Or, as has been the case too often this year, just do whatever you want.
Here is where democratic representation can end. Committees of conference are appointed by majority leadership of each house. Committee recommendations must be unanimous. Should any committee member choose to not vote in a manner favored by leadership, they can be replaced with a more compliant individual. Said more bluntly – a few people in leadership can dictate outcomes.
Here are two recent examples that illustrate the failure of this process to represent the will of the majority, two examples where the expressed will of the full House and Senate were ignored.
The Senate amended a House bill to add back a Senate bill that had fallen to procedural skulduggery in the House. Essentially the Senate passed this energy efficiency measure twice. It was a bill that had bipartisan support in both houses. It was a bill passed by a large majority by the assigned House policy committee. It had extremely broad support from across the state, broader than any bill that has come before the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee in the four years I have served. It was a bill that many testified in support of and only one individual spoke in opposition. How could it fail to become law?
The answer to that question will not be found in public documents. We surmise that lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry were displeased, and we know, from a highly placed Republican leadership source, that Eversource was displeased with the bill. Why would they care? Saving energy is counterproductive to their century-old business model.
Why would Republican leadership, and let me be specific, I am referring to Speaker Shawn Jasper in the House and Majority Leader Jeb Bradley in the Senate, want to kill a bill that had support ranging from the N.H. Business and Industry Association, large and small businesses, including our largest industrial company BAE Systems, N.H. Municipal Association, American Lung Association, numerous conservation groups, community action agencies, the state’s Consumer Advocate, etc.? Could it be that the fossil fuel industry and big utilities are big campaign contributors?
Surely that example is unique. Wish it were so.
For our second example, let’s consider a bill that passed the House policy committee unanimously, passed the full House, 229 to 99, and passed the Senate, 16 to 8, after making some modest changes. When sent to conference to resolve those modest improvements, it was killed by House leadership. How could a bill with overwhelming support in both bodies fail?
As it turns out, quite easily if the House leadership chooses to bow to special, albeit narrow, interests.
This bill would have banned the practice of conversion therapy in the state. A “therapy” – which is not recognized by any credible body and denounced by many – that attempts to force LGBT children to become straight. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration said this about the practice: “Interventions aimed at a fixed outcome, such as gender conformity or heterosexual orientation, including those aimed at changing gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation, are coercive, can be harmful, and should not be part of behavioral health treatment.”
Here was yet another bill with broad and bipartisan support. A bill that sought to protect the welfare of some of our most vulnerable children. How could banning this practice not become law? This time the House leadership on their own can take the full credit for obstructing another worthy bill.
Actions should have consequences. When you read the daily reports about the impacts of climate change or of yet another teen suicide, ask yourself why we haven’t done more. We could have.
Remember that in November when you vote.
(Rep. Bill Baber of Dover, a Democrat, is the ranking member of the Science, Technology and Energy Committee.)