The Democrats on the Senate committee today blocked an amendment that would require the full language of the final health-care takeover bill be available for reading for 72 hours before the vote.
"Let's be honest about it, most people don't read the legislative language," said Senator Kerry. (Did you know he served in Viet Nam?) Politico.comSo making it available long enough for anyone to read it would cause an unnecessary delay, they claim. And besides SOME people will read it in 72 hours.
Kerry and our Washington Senator Cantwell don't want us to know what will be in it. All the Democrats, except Blanche Lincoln, voted against this common-sense amendment and Senator Cantwell is on the Finance Committee, so she must have voted against it.
The issue is the final bill language in its legislative legalese. It is now in plain English, but will be converted. The Demos say the current version should be good enough. But the process of converting it into illegible legislative language will certainly induce differences. The final language is what would be law for decades to come. So we have to be able to see it.
To me it is legislative malpractice to prevent a major bill from being read.
Michelle Malkin has more.
Update: Human Events has the list and distinguished Senator Cantwell voted to oppose letting you see the bill. HE says that with the mark-up session the "plain English" bill is now its original 200 pages plus added pages, markings and Post It notes attached.
Posted by Ron Hebron at September 23, 2009 07:02 PM | Email ThisNoooo. Nobody reads that stuff.
Posted by: Mr. RcGuy on September 23, 2009 07:45 PMThe democrats reticence makes it seem like they're trying to hide something, or pull a fast one.
But they wouldn't do that, would they?
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on September 23, 2009 08:26 PMwhen will you goose steppers ever grow up....face the facts and admit that you were wrong and now the entire country is at risk?
oh, one of those nazi radio broadcasters was letting it slip about the rumor of "peacekeepers" going to Honduras....
come on goose steppers...lets figure a way to get out of that one if true...
Posted by: lee on September 23, 2009 08:26 PMPerhaps the english version should be the final version since, afterall, we all speak english and not legislatese. Hell, it might even encourage the uneducated chairman of the house judiciary committee named John Conyers to actually read the bill he admitted he was incapable of understanding and therefore, didn't read, HR 3200.
Maybe keeping it in simple understandable english will help more Democrat party members understand the bill they're actually voting on, but then, I'm an optimist.
Anyone besides me think they have violated the oath of office?
We need to send every single one of them packing.
Posted by: Vince on September 23, 2009 09:40 PMAnother gripe against Cantwell is that when I called her office back when to complain that ACORN would be a disastrous addition to the Census effort the complaint fell on her deaf ears. (Murray's, too). Cantwell couldn't be bothered about it and deserves a hit for not taking a stand for something that we all knew and tried to sound the alarm on, but she preferred to stay silent and let corruption happen. We here all knew ACORN would be horrible for the Census; Maria and her democrat cohorts simply chose not to see what was already there. You got proved wrong, Maria; try listening to your constituents. They seem to know more than you do about what's going on.
Posted by: Michele on September 23, 2009 10:32 PM
I guess these were only lies uttered to help them get elected.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 24, 2009 08:19 AMWHY ARE YOU NOT PUTTING THE SENATE"s health care bill and the mark up on the internet?
Is it that the top 10% of Doctors will be penilised EACH YEAR? I Live in an area with mostly seniors, therefor my Doctor could bump into that ten percent.
Why should he be threatened and why should I have the chance of losing my life: just so you can quickly sneak through another pork filled bill, that you will not have read?
What is the RUSH: TO KILL OFF SENIORS?
This is male bovine excrement and you know it.
It is time for you to be honest and take this bill and trash can it.
Start with a clean slate. Place the uninsurable in a pool that all insurance co. must participate similar to flood insurance or hurricane insurance.
The government does not need to cover everyone from cradle to grave. THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB.
HOW ABOUT MAJOR MEDICAL AND A TAX DEDUCTABLE MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT?
I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS, I WILL WORK VERY HARD TO DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER AND ORGANIZE SENIORS IN THIS AREA TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT IS IN THIS BILL HOW IT WILL AFFECT THEM AND HOW THEIR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE HAVE VOTED.
How about we apply the KISS rule and Keep it simple, Stupid. If our own elected officials are incapable of understanding the freakin' language contained within the bill (and admitting as such) they're voting a yea or nay on, doesn't it make sense to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator?
Afterall, isn't that what the liberals have done in our SKOOL system? And if it's good enough for the NEA, it's certainly good enough for John Conyer's and Company. Welcome to the short bus congress. All aboard!
Posted by: Rick D. on September 24, 2009 09:02 AMBaird and Minnick.
.
"Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate -- you raise a legitimate concern. People say, well, how can a private company compete against the government? And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. (Applause.)"
What he meant was, it would have to compete on its own, just like the Post Office does, and would not taxpayers subsidizing it.
Guess what? Congress is about to bailout the Post Office with $4 billion. Gosh, that would never happen with the Public Option now would it?
Posted by: Gary on September 24, 2009 10:05 AMA show of hands for everyone in favor?
I know A-holes like you are impressed all to hell with "legislative language" and other things like PHD's. You are a pompous ass that doesn't know he is about to take a baseball bat to the head.
All of that legislative language bullcrap is just about making the law unreadable by the general public. Lawyerese. It is unnecessary. You support these punks in DC. You are my enemy.
Posted by: REBEL on September 24, 2009 10:28 AM"The Republicans Lie... They Want to See You Dead"
HAHAHAHA!
Your headline says you can't see the "bill." That's not true. Bills in the finance committee are done using plain English ("conceptual language") as is long tradition.
Never before in the history of the Finance committee have they voted on actual legislative language. They always vote on conceptual language. Always. In fact, I wish other committees used this method since it leads to much smaller bills that one can actually easily understand. Even amendments are offered in plain English!
This is clearly another delay tactic by the GOP. The merits be damned, we want to score political points!
I'd be fine delaying the floor vote three days once final language is decided -- but the committee vote? It's a waste of time. No one is going to sit around reading the legislative language when the clear, conceptual language exists. We're going to have plenty of time to scour the language after the bill leaves committee.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 24, 2009 05:26 PMBleh, the amendment failed, whatever. For all of those concerned about the extreme secrecy of the bill -- how many hours have you spent watching cspan.org this week? I've racked up at least 10 hours of amendment hearings in the background while at work. I saw them debate this amendment. It's pretty obvious any time that the GOP gets the mic they take their cozy time to draw the process out.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 24, 2009 05:29 PMMichele et al, it's a matter of much more than 3 days. If I understand correctly, the legislative language will not exist when the committee votes on the bill. The committee votes on the English version. It sounds to me like the legislative language is written later (perhaps at the conference committee stage? earlier?) and before the full House and Senate votes. Perhaps someone can verify or correct me on this. But it is silly to criticize the Senate for not publishing language when that's not what they're voting on.
So, just to clarify, the reason this is a non-issue is because the committee in charge of creating the bill will vote on passing the bill to the entire Senate before actually writing the bill.
In other words, this is nothing because it's a vote on a bill that does not exist.
Is that really your contention, Bruce? That this is an acceptable way to do the people's work? To vote first, legislate later?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 24, 2009 09:33 PMThe bill doesn't kick in until 2013. Considering it will fundamentally restructure 20% of our GDP, and require literally trillions of dollars, what's the problem with taking a few extra weeks to get it right while we have the time to get it right?
Why the rush for a bill that doesn't kick in until 2013? Is the 2, 3, 4, or even 6 week delay going to risk the 2013 launch date?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 24, 2009 09:36 PMGood.
He also said today that Iran is "breaking the rules". Uh... duh, or something.
What will he do about it? I supposed he'll defend Iran against an Israeli attack by shooting down Israeli planes. That's what he'll do about it.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but if you want to know why this health care reform is in such a shambles, just ask Katie Couric, even she says he screwed the pooch on this thing.
Delay is a good thing when you're talking about such a big bill. Don't you think?
The Dems are afraid the people might find something in that 72 hours that is objectionable. If the people do, then that is a *good* thing, not a bad thing. If the people do not, then you lost three days. Just three days.
I agree with that spirit, but this amendment didn't do that.
It would have wasted time. The plain English version is exactly the same as the legalese version. Translation that is quick. For the CBO to do a fresh score would involve a ridiculous amount of effort since they wouldn't be able to consult the plain English version that they have already scored.
It was a plain and clear delay tactic, guys. The CBO is going to score the plain English version the same as the legalese version since by rules they have the same contents.
Gary, it is not a 72 hour delay. It's a multiple week delay and it's grandstanding. The bill has already been delayed for months now. People know their positions on the issues, and while a spirited debate is fine whining about process and being in the minority is simply not a true contribution to the process.
Every other bill in the history of the Finance committee has done CBO judgments with plain English. Why change this now? Partisan games -- that's it. (The Finance committee handled major tax overhauls that affected even more of the economy than health care.)
Now, delaying the committee vote for three days -- without waiting for CBO judgment of legalese -- is a whole separate amendment. The marks are freely available and have already been for days. So are the amendments. No one is going to be helped by the delay and we're going to have plenty of time to read the bills -- in their full legalese form -- while they're on the floor.
I would be very fine with having a three-day waiting period between the conference report and the final vote. And even a week delay between the final vote and the signing. But delays in committee are not helpful. Fight your case on the floor if you have one.
Posted by: John Jensen on September 25, 2009 05:17 PMSo? Should we have passed it in July with all of the bad stuff in it? Don't you think the delay has worked to make a better bill? You were opposed to it in July.
It would have wasted time.
OK, so how much time wasted, and how would a 1, 2, 3 week or even 2, 3, or 4 month delay affect a bill that doesn't kick in until 2013?
What's the problem with slowing down when you are fundamentally restructuring 20% of the US economy? Especially when the legislation doesn't start for 4 years? Why not take a few extra weeks - heck, months - to satisfy your critics?
The President and the congressional leadership keeps wanting to get the Republicans on board with this legislation. How about letting the Republicans read it over, let their constituents read it over, and then decide if they want to participate.
Or is it, as Bruce wrote, the best way to simply vote first then write the bill later?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 26, 2009 09:59 AMFrankly, he should be thanking us.
He told us Afghanistan was his #1 priority. He has spoken exactly once to the commanding General.
Posted by: Gary on September 28, 2009 09:00 AM