You need to

be aware of a behind-the-scenes debate in Washington.

It's a microcosm

of a much larger debate that should be taking place but isn't.

Congress is

trying to decide whether to give President Bush "fast track"

negotiating authority to move trade agreements with other countries along

more quickly.

It sounds quite

reasonable. If it's enacted, basically a fast track trade bill would go

through Congress without the opportunity for amendments.

Debate over

all the amendments can slow things down, and the trade deal could get

muddied up in the process.

To understand

why it's not such a good idea, you have to understand how things are done

in Washington behind the scenes where you and I often never find out the

details.

Suppose, hypothetically,

that the president works out a trade deal with the tiny kingdom of Allheckistan,

opening up a market for beard trimmers primarily manufactured on the West

Coast. He puts together a bill and launches it into Congress.

But Rep. Ida

Wanna from the Midwest wants to include some provisions so manufacturers

of sand sifters from her state could also get a piece of the pie.

But under fast

track legislation, this bill cannot be amended. It can only be passed

or killed.

The president

wants Ida's vote, so how does he get it? He tells one of his water-carriers

in the House to get with Ida and promise her a $150 million appropriation

for a tractor museum in her district in next year's appropriations bill.

And Ida goes along with it, even though the sand sifter manufacturers

will miss out, because it's better than nothing.

And when you

add up the hundreds of times this happens every year, what you end up

with is several billion dollars worth of pork that you and I will have

to pay for because of these back-room deals.

I have long

argued that the lawmaking process should be cleaned up by passage of a

constitutional amendment prohibiting any amendments attached to any bill

if the amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the aims of the bill.

Congress regularly

takes popular legislation and loads it down with items that couldn't get

through otherwise, and thus we take every good idea and load it down with

bad ideas.

But amending

legislation is not only the constitutional right of the Congress ... it's

the constitutional duty of the Congress. No bill should ever be exempt.

Here's the

larger concern: Over the decades Congress has amassed a whole tool shed

full of similar devices that help our representatives get things done

through deal-making rather than debate.

Legislation

gets passed without the bothersome necessity of defending it on its merits

with the public looking on.

And that, dear

readers, is a large part of why our freedoms are eroding and the government

is becoming more and more bloated every day.