Last week I posted about Republican members of Congress who are avoiding face-to-face town hall meetings with their constituents since the election of Donald Trump as president.

I wondered if Congressman Goodlatte was among them.

Based on a recent “open door” meeting in Lexington between a staffer for Goodlatte and several residents of the Sixth District, it appears he indeed is one of those dodging any meetings where he might encounter disagreement or opposition.

According to several of those at the Lexington meeting, the staffer, Debbie Garrett, was asked if Goodlatte intended to hold any open town hall meetings in his district. She responded negatively, instead raising concerns about “security” in the 21st Century.

In terms of “security”: what does Goodlatte have to fear from facing the people he is supposed to represent in Congress? As for the 21st Century: Goodlatte held open town hall meetings as recently as the summer of 2013– well into this particular century and with no threats to safety or public order.

Was Ms. Garrett speaking for Goodlatte? It would be good to know. If you want to contact the congressman and ask, you can call his office in Washington at (202) 225-5431 or get in touch via his website.

(Hat tip: 50 Ways-Rockbridge)

It would appear not.

Responding to a recent post at Goodlatte Watch, reader Paul Kosmas writes:

I called Goodlatte in mid-December asking him to support Rep Katherine Clark’s Presidential Accountability Act (HR 6340), which would require the President and VP to put assets in a blind trust. His response letter shows a clear disdain for the Emoluments clause as it says, “As you may know, federal office holders are prohibited from engaging government business when they stand to gain a profit. The President and Vice President of the United States are exempt from this law.”

This is Goodlatte’s egregious and willful ignorance of the Constitutional prohibition of the President profiting from the office.

Goodlatte should be made to reconcile his position on this with the Constitution.

In 2013, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa declared in ugly and offensive terms his opposition to a law that would have allowed some undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children to remain in the country conditionally:

“We have people that are mules, that are drug mules, that are hauling drugs across the border and you can tell by their physical characteristics what they’ve been doing for months, going through the desert with 75 pounds of drugs on their back and if those who advocate for the DREAM Act, if they choose to characterize this about valedictorians, I gave them a different image that we need to be thinking about because we just simply can’t be passing legislation looking only at one component of what would be millions of people.
…..
“For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there that weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.”

King’s ignorant and bigoted remarks (for which he never apologized) were repudiated by both Democrats and Republicans– including Congressman Goodlatte, who declared them “not helpful” and “inappropriate.”

This is not a one-off for King, who has a long history of speaking and acting with ignorance and bigotry.

Most recently King lent credence to President Donald Trump’s bizarre lie that he lost the popular vote in the 2016 election because millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton.

So what does it tell us about Goodlatte that he has appointed Steve King as chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice?

“His expertise on many of the issues facing our nation and the committee make him well-suited to serve as chairman of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee,” Goodlatte said in a written statement. “I look forward to working with him as we seek to safeguard Americans’ liberties and promote an efficient and just legal system.”

Perhaps Goodlatte should be reminded that someone like King has no business being in Congress, let alone chairing an important subcommittee of Congress.

Congressman Goodlatte recently delivered a handsome tribute to the United States Constitution. Most significantly at a time like this, he recited the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, and the right of people to assemble peacefully for the redress of grievances.

I hope Goodlatte’s commitment to the Constitution extends to Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, known as the Emoluments Clause. It provides:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatsoever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

President Donald Trump has extensive foreign business connections, including with state-owned companies in countries like China. So far he has refused to divest ownership of his companies, simply turning over management to his older sons. If any one of those state-owned companies provides any sort of financial advantage to the president or one of his businesses,  a case could be made that he has violated the Emoluments Clause. It’s also possible that foreign diplomats staying at Trump-owned hotels could violate the clause.

Trump currently faces a lawsuit on the matter.

Given Goodlatte’s clear devotion to the Constitution, I hope he takes these concerns seriously. Fortunately, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee, he is in a position to call hearings and give these matters the scrutiny the deserve.

He should be encouraged to do so– the sooner the better. Perhaps it could be part of a larger inquiry into the potential conflicts between Trump’s business interests and his position as president of the United States. I’m still waiting to hear whether he plans to pursue that, as requested by the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Post reports:

Seven years after unruly Democratic town halls helped stoke public outrage over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans now appear keen to avoid the kind of dustups capable of racking up millions of views on YouTube and ending up in a 2018 campaign commercial. Only a handful of GOP lawmakers have held or are currently planning to host in-person town hall meetings open to all comers — the sort of large-scale events that helped feed the original Obamacare backlash in the summer of 2009.

So far this year Congressman Goodlatte has not scheduled any in-person town hall meetings open to all constituents. That’s understandable from his point of view, I suppose. But there isn’t a better time than the beginning of a new administration in Washington for him to hear what’s on the minds of folks in the Sixth District.

Perhaps phone calls and emails to Goodlatte’s office would provide the encouragement he needs to face the voters in person. I’d hate to think he was afraid to do so.

The following letter to the editor appeared in the January 18 edition of The Staunton News Leader:

Dear Rep. Goodlatte: 

Last week, my husband, who has provided for our family for the last 10 years, became unemployed.

My first concern (besides how to keep the lights on) was what we would for health insurance coverage. After staying home with our two young children for the last seven years, I had just resumed my career in September. I was hired as a part-time, hourly employee with no benefits. Our family was insured through my husband’s work, and my job brings in too much for us to qualify for Medicaid or CHIP.

We have no other way to get insurance.

Yesterday, we received a COBRA statement in the mail, indicating that to continue coverage would cost $1300 per month.

That’s as much as our mortgage payment.

Soon after that, I went to http://www.healthcare.gov and visited the Healthcare Marketplace. I spent a few hours doing research and making telephone calls. As a result, effective February 1st, we’ll have a better health and dental coverage plan than we had through my husband’s employer.

All our long-time care providers remain “in-network” and it will cost one-third of the COBRA Price ($485).

Mr. Goodlatte, if you don’t believe my family should have access to affordable health insurance, what would you suggest we, and millions of families like us, do?

Sir, my family needs affordable health insurance. Please do not vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, without a suitable replacement. That vote does not represent the needs of your constituents. It’s not good for me, my family, nor many of us who live in the beautiful western region of Virginia.

MARGARET CAISTER

Staunton

Today I sent the following email to Temple Moore, Congressman Goodlatte’s Legislative Correspondent at his office in Washington:

Hi Temple,

I want to follow up on our phone conversation of December 21.

As you may recall, I phoned Congressman Goodlatte’s office to ask two specific questions:

— Has Congressman Goodlatte responded to the letter from the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee asking him to schedule hearings on the potential conflicts between Donald Trump’s businesses interests and his position as President of the United States?

— Does Congressman Goodlatte intend to schedule hearings on that matter?

You promised to check with the congressman and get back to me. I haven’t heard from you since. Have you had a chance to ask him about it?

I hope Congressman Goodlatte would agree that Trump’s plan to continue to own his businesses and simply turn over management to his sons is hardly a satisfactory solution, and that the public deserves a more thorough examination of the many potential conflicts inherent in being both President and a large-scale business owner.

When can I expect a response from the congressman?

Best wishes for the New Year,

Gene Zitver

I will report any response I receive.

Even though more than 30,000 of his Sixth District constituents have obtained vital health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, Congressman Goodlatte is fully on board with the Republican effort to repeal the law.

As he has in the past, Goodlatte touts the GOP’s so-called “Better Way” plan as an  alternative to the ACA. But as Huffington Post reported:

According to Goodlatte’s Congressional office:

Many are asking what a new health care system will look like. Crafting a new system that works for Americans is of the utmost importance and something Congress is taking very seriously. House Republicans have shared numerous ideas over the past several years that would create a health care system focused on patients, not the government.

In fact there is very little evidence that Republicans have been seriously working on an alternative to Obamacare that would meet the needs of the tens of millions of Americans currently insured through the law.

If a large share of the Sixth District residents covered through the ACA contacted Goodlatte about their concerns, he surely would pay attention. Wouldn’t he?

Largely under the media radar, two bills strongly supported by Congressman Goodlatte that would make it much harder for the federal government to protect workers, consumers and the environment have been approved by Republican majorities in the House of Representatives.

Having failed in his effort to gut a Congressional ethics watchdog, Goodlatte is now intent on weakening the government’s ability to protect health, ensure safety and save lives.

One bill, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, would effectively shut down the entire federal regulatory system, according to the League of Women Voters:

Under the bill, no major regulation could take effect unless it is approved by both houses of Congress within a limited period of time. This would effectively amend every existing regulatory statute – including bedrock laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act – and neuter them. The regulatory system would return to what it was in the age of the robber barons with no federal agency able to use its technical and scientific expertise to protect the public. Either house of Congress could kill any future safeguard simply by failing to act.

 

The public expects the government to be able to protect it from toxins in food, consumer products, air and water. The REINS Act would make that virtually impossible. It would amount to a coup by ideologues and special interests that have been unable to block safeguards through normal legislative and constitutional processes.

 

The bill’s sponsors understand how completely their bill would shut down the regulatory system. Apparently, for that reason, they have added a new provision – a one-year delay – to make sure that REINS could not get in the way of Trump Administration efforts to repeal regulations. REINS would close up the regulatory system so completely that efforts to alter or repeal regulations would also never be able to take effect.

Another bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act, was introduced by Goodlatte and opposed by the American Lung Association, among other groups. Harold P. Wimmer, president and CEO of the association, issued the following statement:

“Simply put, the Regulatory Accountability Act is slow-motion government shutdown. It would have dangerous consequences for Americans’ health, particularly on our most vulnerable populations, including children, older adults and those living with lung and heart disease. The American Lung Association is disappointed in the House’s passage of this legislation and calls on the Senate to reject it.

“This bill would not ensure ‘regulatory accountability.’ Instead, under the guise of reform, it would impose dozens of unnecessary requirements that would bog down the process for setting health safeguards – safeguards that would successfully prevent more asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes and premature deaths.

“Current law already requires that federal rules go through extensive review, analysis and public comment before they are finalized. H.R. 5 would impose additional layers of red tape on agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration that would dramatically impair their ability to do what the Clean Air Act and the Tobacco Control Act set out to do: protect our health from harmful air pollution and tobacco products.

“Furthermore, the bill prioritizes industry profits over public health, requiring that agencies default to setting rules with the estimated least cost to industry – not, for example, according to what the science says is necessary to protect health.

“The Regulatory Accountability Act is a broad assault on the ability of federal agencies, including the EPA and FDA, to protect public health. The Lung Association urges the U.S. Senate to save our lungs and vote against H.R. 5.”

If you live in Virginia’s Sixth Congressional District, you can contact Goodlatte and let him know what you think.

As he does at the start of every session of Congress, Congressman Goodlatte has introduced a “balanced budget” amendment to the US Constitution, requiring that Congress spend no more than it receives in revenues unless three-fifths majorities in both houses of Congress approve deficit spending.

Goodlatte piously proclaimed:

“It is time for Congress to finally put an end to fiscal irresponsibility and stop saddling future generations with crushing debts to pay for our current spending. We must rise above partisanship and join together to send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification.”

But here’s the thing about Goodlatte: his vaunted fiscal conservatism only seems to kick in when a Democrat happens to be president.

Goodlatte’s votes in Congress– along with those of other Republicans and some Democrats– helped turn the budget surplus that George W. Bush inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 into the huge budget deficit that Barack Obama inherited from Bush in 2009.

While supporting Bush’s across-the-board tax cuts, which cost the Treasury $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, Goodlatte also voted for the president’s unfunded Medicare prescription drug program ($495 billion from general revenue through 2015), as well as the hugely expensive and unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (at least $1.6 trillion through 2014).

For Goodlatte, introducing a balanced budget amendment is like saying, “Stop me before I slash hundreds of billions in revenue and spend hundreds of billions we don’t have again.”

It will be interesting to see how Goodlatte votes if Donald Trump’s proceeds with his plans to further increase the federal debt by cutting taxes while boosting military and infrastructure spending and building a wall on the Mexican border.