“You Expect Us To READ This??”
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on July 28, 2009 at 9:15 PM in Congress (House & Senate), Current Affairs, Democrats, Legislative Achievements, President Barack Obama, Universal Health Care
That is, in essence, what Rep. John Conyers said as he mocked representatives on the floor insisting bills are actually read before they go up for a vote (H/T to NQ Reader tzada, for the alert). Don’t take my word for it, though. Here Representative Conyers is saying so:
“What good is it?” What GOOD IS IT to read the bill???? Are you freakin’ kidding me? Well, Rep. Conyers, I’ll tell you: I have a bit of a problem with our Congresspeople not bothering to know just what the hell they are voting on when they rush bills through. I think we have seen how that has worked out in terms of the Stimulus Bill, haven’t we? Cap and Trade? And now the Health Care Bill? “What good is it,” indeed. I am sure you have made your constituents SO proud to have you represent them.
Apparently, other American citizens actually care about “what good is it to read the bill,” too, as this piece by Philadelphia Inquirer Columnist Kevin Ferris, would indicate, “Back Channels: Imagine: Reading A Bill Before Passing It.” See, to ME, this should go without saying. But apparently NOT to the people elected to do the people’s business:
In 1776, the rallying cry was, “No taxation without representation.”Today, it could be, “No taxation without totally clueless representation.”
That’s what Americans got on June 26, when the House voted 219-212 for the “cap-and-tax” energy bill, as the Republicans refer to it. The bill ran more than 1,000 pages, and before members had time to digest that tome, 300 pages of amendments were added after midnight. When Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) started to read the additions, bill cosponsor Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) objected. He was rebuffed. There are no time limits for comments by House leaders.
“When you file a 300-page amendment at 3:09 a.m., the American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Boehner said.
Whether this bill will lessen greenhouse-gas emissions – as Democrats hope – or kill countless jobs – as Republicans predict – or ever pass the Senate, remains to be seen. But the House vote did raise a question that cuts across party and ideology:
How can lawmakers vote on something so important without a thorough understanding of what’s in it?
Are you asking me? If so, my answer is, they should NOT be voting on ANYTHING they have not read thoroughly! Hell to the no, they should not laugh off the idea of READING it!
Of course, there are varying levels of bills. I understand that. So does Ferris:
Not the everyday “We hereby rename this post office in honor of so-and-so” or “We officially declare this Goldfish Month.” The big things, like an almost $800 billion stimulus plan, or an energy package that Politico said “would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.”Actually reading such legislation, as the founders might say, should be self-evident.
But apparently not. So a little nudge is in order, especially with health-care reform looming.
One nudger is Colin Hanna, a former Chester County commissioner and president of the conservative advocacy group Let Freedom Ring. He has begun a campaign (www.pledgetoread.org) that asks members of the House and Senate to promise the following:
“I . . . pledge to my constituents and to the American people that I will not vote to enact any health-care reform package that:
“1) I have not read, personally, in its entirety; and,
“2) Has not been available, in its entirety, to the American people on the Internet for at least 72 hours, so that they can read it too.”
I know nothing about this organization, but still, how can you argue with reading the bill??? I might ad, this is FAR from a “conservatives only” issue:
Let Freedom Ring isn’t alone. A consortium of liberal and good-government groups is backing readthebill.org, and a libertarian group, DownsizeDC.org, essentially wants the two planks of Hanna’s pledge enacted as federal law.Having been a commissioner, Hanna understands that lawmakers can’t read every line of every bill, but he argues that in some cases it’s necessary.
“There are certain issues of scope and importance that demand an extra measure of due diligence, including reading the bill in full,” he said in an interview. Health care, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus all rise to that level, he says, adding that legislators dismiss this sentiment at their peril.
“There is a rising public demand that bills be read,” he says. “And there is a rising public outrage against politicians who dismissively suggest that’s just the way Washington works.”
I know – you probably think he means John Conyers here. Nope. Someone with even more power:
He is referring to a Politico story about the initial response by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.) when asked about a pledge: laughter. But then Hoyer backpedaled, saying that of course members, staff, or review boards read bills, or at least “substantial portions.”Hoyer’s reaction shows that the priority is not to make informed judgments and improve legislation, Hanna suggests, but to rush through bad laws before anyone can object.
“They want to completely control the entire legislative process and ram it down not only Congress’ throat but the American people’s throat, and we think that’s wrong,” Hanna says.
So it would seem. I don’t think that is solely a Democratic thing, but for a Party whose very name implies that it cares about DEMOCRACY, it is a bit of a problem, if you ask me. And ISN’T THIS FOR WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE PAID??? Geezum crow already! I guess if they are willing to give up a good portion of their salaries, that might be more understandable. Or have the work become part-time. Obama is used to that concept – he might actually go for that. Ahem. Naturally, that won’t happen anytime soon, so it is up to us:
If Congress hasn’t the time or inclination to read the bills, let the public do it. And that’s where Part 2 of the pledge comes in – allowing 72 hours for citizens to read legislation online before a vote.“We have the technology to make complex legislation available for public and media inspection,” Hanna says. “We’re not being true to the ideals of democracy if we don’t take advantage of that technology.”
He has a point. Granted, a “read the bill” movement can come off as gimmicky, but given recent votes and the magnitude of the bills, how does one argue against citizen access to legislation? Candidate Obama had promised to post bills online before he signed them into law. He’s broken the promise, so let Congress set an even higher standard.
We’ll have a better idea tomorrow. On his Web site, Hanna has been tallying the number of pledge supporters. Tomorrow, he plans to reveal the names of those backers – as well as those who rejected or ignored the offer to sign the pledge.
At which time voters will be a little better informed, even if their senators and representatives refuse to be. (Contact Kevin Ferris at kf@phillynews.com, or 215-854-5305.)
Seems to me there are a couple of options here. Either the lawmakers make the bills SHORTER, and only address the issue at hand – and not throw in everything including the kitchen sink. OR they take the time to READ THE DAMN THING. Frankly, I don’t think that is too much to ask of them. Come to think of it, that is the very LEAST we can ask of them, don’t you think?
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
AMEN! If bills are too huge and too complicated to read, the solution is not to say don’t read them, the solution is to write the damn things shorter, simpler, and in plain english! Who writes the bills?? Huh? It’s not like they come down from the good fairy, so if they are too long and confusing WHOSE FAULT IS THAT?
If my surgeon failed to read my chart or my lab tests before cutting me open, I guess “Well, it was really long and complicated…” would be an acceptable excuse? No!
I can see for minor everyday bills, but major bills on major policies or huge amounts of money are like DOING SURGERY on this country. And they had DAMN well better know what they are voting on before wielding that scalpel.
These whining, arrogant, entitled congresspersons pissing and moaning about doing their JOB have gotten on my LAST nerve. I’m about ready to throw them ALL out.
WMCB, I ha the exact same conversation with someone at work today. If you can read it or after having read don’t understand it then the bill should be refered back to committee. Period.
Also, nor more of “strike the and insert a colon, at paragraph.
I suspect many of the bills are purposely written like insurance policies…so that the public can’t understand them, thereby making it easier for the Congress to not do the job they were sent there to do while at the same time, foisting many unpleasant and undemocratic laws onto us.
I’m from MN: I will not be voting for anyone who can’t or didn’t read a bill they vote on, House or Senate.
What the foxtrot did we elect these folks for?
I could’ve elected my dog: He can’t read either.
What absolute hubris!
Do we not expect an attorney to have passed the bar and educated himself on the law?
Do we not expect a doctor to have a license to practice medicine and be versed in his speciality?
Why in the world then do we have members of Congress who feel it beneath them to educate themselves on matters that their constituents sent them to tackle? Read you say? How droll! How plebeian? Don’t you know who I am? Is it not that kind of “elitism” that was on display recently in Cambridge Mass?
Ask members of Congress today what is the difference between a Shiia and a Sunni and the majority will still plead ignorance. Well, ignorance of the law is not a viable defense when violating said law! That being said, these over-paid, under-serving supposed “civil servants” fail to grasp that they are where they are to provide a service; a service that cannot be provided properly if they are simply going to preen and pose.
I believe that all members of Congress should be forced to wear Formula One/Nascar styled jumpsuits instead of dress attire. On those jumpsuits should be their corporate sponsorships so that when the move their lips we know who paid for their ass!
Excellent comments and excellent idea on the jumpsuits…..
How dare you racists criticize a man of color!!!
You’re all right wing racist Republicans.
R3A, just change the language here.
In the quoted language from the reporter, he asks, “How can…” You reply, “Hell To The NO!” But he wasn’t asking, “Do you think…” See what I mean?
Yep, thanks, jbjd – clearly one of the many moments I was interrupted while trying to get this done. Oops!
Thanks – it’s all fixed now.
The Dubyacrats: “reading them bills is hard work!”
ROTFLMAO – thanks, Boogaloo – I needed that laugh!
Eurogirl and WMCB, no kidding! They are MOCKING people expecting them to read on what they are voting! As if they are too good for that kind of thing. Read? Please. Who has time with all of the arm-twisting, schmoozing, parties, and spending our money? Sheesh – what do you want from them??
Grrrr.
Well, I wish I could join in the laughter…but I can’t. This only adds to the despair I feel about our elected officials. Conyers joins the ever-growing list of arrogant bums that we pay to rob us.
Conyers was leading the group when it comes to hubris. Between him and his wife, there’s not much hubris left for the rest of ‘em.
Hubris is like a level five infectious disease.
Imagine if you will, a principled Congressperson sits down to read a 1000 page bill. They look up and see the vote on the bill is coming up in five minutes. They are on page 45.
One of the things that PISSES ME OFF is the 300 page bill that was parachuted in at 03:00am AFTER conferees had signed off on “da bill”.
How many Dems were railing against this crap, and now they are bigger assholes then the repubs. They do the thing they rail against.
Teak, I know – can you believe that? Adding in a 300 page bill with NO discussion? Can you imagine if any of us tried anything comparable in our lines of work? We would be summarily tossed out on our keesters tout suite. Yet, they consistently pull this kind of crap.
And hell yes, they should be able to understand – without the assistance of attorneys – what the heck it is on which they are VOTING!
Who are these people?? And what did they do with our Congress??
Rev. Amy,
Excellent post! As always, you hit the nail on the head.
The way I see it, if it’s too complicated for the representatives to understand then they haven’t done their job and should scrap the bill and start over. NO BILL should be too complicated for those who are supposed to have written them, much less expected to be followed by the people whom they are supposed to serve! Their arrogance is beyond belief and should be yet another wake up call to all of America that our government is no longer the servant of the people.
As I’ve always said about our elections process, which is just as corrupt as the government we didn’t elect — the only experts in elections should be the people themselves. The same should be true for any laws that we, the people, are expected to follow.
Yes, we pay them, they argue and posture, then they pass bills that they fought over so contentiously, even though most of them have no clue what the bills contain. What a great system.
Most Americans would lose their jobs if we performed similarly.
All I can say is 2010/2012.
Congresspersons should be required to not only read the bills that are introduced, they should be required to take an examination to prove that they understand them. If they pass the exam they can vote on them, if not….
I wrote about the absurdity of this earlier today on my blog.
What’s good for the Moose is good for the Panderer
Legislation must be enacted to provide publication of all bills prior to a floor vote. This will not only give the voters enough time to read and understand the proposed legislation (and, where necessary, ask for help translating)but also to register their position on such legislation with elected officials. BO promised 5 (five) days lead time during the campaign; presumably, he would sign a bill with that requirement for publication.
Enacting legislation requiring legislators to read the bill before the vote is superfluous. Presumably, the intent of the voters here is to ensure that their elected representatives are looking out for their best interest. But what of constituents with competing interests? Besides, reading does not equate to comprehending. I have a better idea. Assume your elected representative has read and understood each bill before the vote. (If the bill comes up for vote without sufficient time for legislators to read, they can always enter their objections into the record before such vote.)
Then, when your elected representatives vote against your interests, vote against theirs.
Legislation must be enacted to provide publication of all bills prior to a floor vote.
May I add to that the stipulation that once that bill is posted for the public to read, NO changes may be made without another 5 day window. None of this last minute tacking on of riders and supplementals. They vote on the same bill WE saw and read.
One of the most un-constitutional aspects of this whole thing is the citizens of this country are prevented from seeking redress on proposed legislation. The bottom line is that “The People” are left freezing their assess off in some Rezko tenement, regardless of color or crede, without representation.
Disgusting. This corrupt bunch in D.C.–politicians, lobbyists, campaign cheats, big money oligarch–are WHY We the People should all read the bills and raise hell when we catch these crooks trying to steal our livelihoods and our democracy.
Remember when a high school journalism/communications/writing teacher used to say, “The longer the wronger?”
In college, my ‘professor,’ a lawyer, wrote this critique on one of my papers: You are beginning to sound like and, more unfortunately, write like a judge.
I think they are just acting “stupidly”.
If Conyers (or any other Congresscritter) thinks that it is too much trouble to actually read a bill, then A. the Congresscritter needs to be unemployed, and B. it is nearly a guarantee that there is something in the bill that the constituents will not like.
I second that emotion!
It is this way with any salesman. Congresscritters aspire to have the moral standing of a Used Car salesman, but the upward jump is beyond most of them. Mark Twain was right ( … uniquely American criminal class … ).
A possibility: Conyers could have been commenting on the ridiculousness of drafting such complicated legislation on a rushed schedule. It sounds like he was replying to someone’s point that is not included in the clip.
Perhaps some administration stooge was using “read the bill” like Obama supporters used “read the website” – an excuse not to explain what they intend by the legislation. The inclusion of the “two lawyers” remark indicates that to me.
Conyers isn’t perfect, but he’s been a good rep more than not, and I’d like to hear more context before I condemn him.
And, yeah, his wife’s a piece of work, but I know a lot of people who’ve made stupid choices for spouses.
Geez and people run on here to support these loons, what a mess we are in these people pass legislation not knowing what the hell is in it and they just don’t care.
I think we really need to dump the entire lot of them this is unbelievable
OMG–Our health will depend on these morons voting on something they know little about.
Who wrote this bill anyway? It makes no sense. YES, I actually tried to read it.
you can bet that who ever wrote the bill also wrote some big fat checks to the congresscrooks, and you can bet that said congresscrooks read the dollar signs on those checks very carefully.
Ozero wanted the health care destruction passed before the August recess. You don’t suppose that he (or more likely, Pelousy) are hiding some unacceptable things in there? (rhetorical question)
The question taken in the literal is more striking than in the rhetorical. For instance if just ONE of those nebulus “periods” “and” “or”, “strike this” and “replaces that” changes a legal interpetation, no one will argue or even know until it is to late.
Read much?
“Rhetorical” as in “We already know the answer”.
jwrjr , The “read much” was Rhetorical as well
The “Congress-death-eaters-persons” are a bunch of lemmings (with parachutes) hurling themselves off the cliff of political expediency. Cheered on by BO the Half
bloodwit prince, urging them on in Parcel tongue, the official language of the 57th state.If I let BO call me stupid can I have a beer too?
Yes, there is a lot in there they don’t want you to know. Basically on pages 16-17, after 5 years your private insurance you got to keep has to be the same as the government choice and if there are ANY changes such as copay that changed after the inception date of the healthcare bill, then you have to get government care. Wonder how many private insurers will be in business after 6 years?
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107408/5-freedoms-you-would-lose-in-health-care-reform.html?mod=insurance-health
There are so many things wrong with his comments, it just makes my blood boil.
They can’t understand the bill? Well, if these guys can’t (many who are lawyers themselves) understand it, WHO can? If they can’t, then YES idiot, get a lawyer. Why is it so difficult to understand? That is a problem! And gee, they don’t want to spend TWO days reading it? It’s their JOB! This just baffles me!!
Great post Amy! I am as outraged as you!
Thanks, AGII!
It truly is absurd, isn’t it? And Conyers wasn’t the ONLY one who said it (and the video makes it quite clear he was mocking the “readers”), but the House Majority Leader as well!! That is just shocking on its face!
And who the hell is writing these bills if the reps can’t understand the damn things?????
I think that to prove they’ve read the bill and understand what’s in it, they should all have to write a synopsis of what’s in the bill and post it on their respective websites at least 72 hours before a vote. That way, their constituents (as well as all the rest of the country) can be sure their Congressidiot HAS read the bill and DOES understand it. It would also be interesting to compare the synopses of all the Congressidiots …..
I’m so beyond outraged I don’t think there’s a word yet to describe my emotions.
SF Indie,
I concur with that idea.
Also, I would like to have ALL bills have a descriptive topical index, so that we can quickly find the portion that pertains.
Amy, as always a fantastic job informing all of us what the overpaid useless congress critters are doing. You are truly a valuable asset to us all.
Seems like if someone is not capable of doing a job or unwilling to,then they should be fired. The Constitution says that congress shall make no laws that infringe on an individual rights (paraphrased)
So if someone breaks the law of the land they should be fired? imprisoned? let to continue?
I would like to see a ‘plain english’ interpretation of the bill. I tried to read the darn thing, and my head was spinning after only a few pages.
If something on page 150 is ’struck out’ on page 400, for heaven’s sake, just show it as struck out on page 150! Modern word processing software can add comments, show strikeouts, etc…
I vote that whoever is responsible for adding / changing a provision should also be responsible for writing the ‘plain English’ version, so there can be no argument about the intent. But others should be able to comment on ‘unintended consequences’ as well…
“So is the Obama plan really better than nothing?
The Obama plan seems calculated to buy time for private insurers, to end the health care discussion for a decade or more without solving the health care problem, do so in a way that discredits the very idea of everybody in- nobody out health care. It will leave tens of millions uninsured, a hundred million or more underinsured, and the same parasitic private interests in charge of the American health care system that run it now.
The Obama plan as it now stands requires us to let another 18,000 die for each of the next three years and allow more than a million additional families to be bankrupted by medical expenses before we can judge whether or not the plan is working. It’s easy to imagine Obama partisans telling us in mid 2013 that it’s still too early to be sure.”
Read the entire article:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-health-care-plan-really-better-nothing
Our country’s in the very best of hands.