In Case You Missed It ...

Most people who get their news from the Internet didn't miss the news of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) objecting to the unanimous consent to forgo the reading of health care bill amendment SA#2837 (co-sponsored by our Sen. Sherrod Brown). As a result of his objection, the clerk started to read the 767-page document - a process that was estimated to take about 38 hours.

The issue made news when, violating Senate rules, the amendment was withdrawn during the reading process.

However, you might have missed what happened just prior to Coburn's objection.

Sen. Coburn asked unanimous consent for an amendment certifying that all senators had read and understood the bill prior to voting on it:

"Mr. President, I have another unanimous consent request. Following consent request would be associated with a Coburn amendment that would certify that every member of the Senate has read the bill and understands it before they vote on the bill. And the reason I ask the unanimous consent that that amendment be agreed to and accepted is that's exactly what the American people expect us to be doing. And so we don't have a bill right now. We don't know what's going to be in the bill. The chairman has a good idea of what's going to be in the bill, but he doesn't know for sure. Only two sets of people, Senator Reid and his staff and CBO know what's going to be in the bill. I suspect somebody at the White House might. But we ought to -- we ought to take and embrace this idea of transparency and responsibility that the American people can expect every one of us to have read this bill plus the amended bill and certify that we have an understanding for what we're doing to health care in America with this bill. And I'd ask unanimous consent that that be accepted."

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) objected and here is the exchange:

"Reserving the right to object, I certainly agree with the basic underlying import that we should know what we're voting on here. I must say to my good friend that presumes a certain level of perception on my part and understanding in delving into the minds of the senator, that not only do they read, but take the time to understand. What does understand mean? Understand the first, second levels of questions? I think it is impossible to certify that any senator fully understood."

Senator Coburn: (12:00 PM) Responded.

"I would clarify my request, that the individual certify themselves. I'm not asking some group of senators to certify some other senator. I'm saying Tom Coburn tell his constituency, I've read this puppy, I've spent the time on it, I've read the manager's amendment, and I, in fact, certify to the people of Oklahoma, I know how terrible it's going to be for their health care."

Senator Baucus: (12:01 PM) Responded.

"The senator is always free to make any representation he wants. If he wants to certify he has read it, he has understood it, that's the senator's privilege."

So, the Senators, prior to voting do not have to certify to the American people that they have read - and understood - what they're voting on.

Personally, I think every bill in the House and Senate needs to have this certification on it. Maybe then, we'd have less ridiculousness coming out of Washington.

Things I'd blog about if I had more time

I've been a bit busy the last couple of days, so here are some bullet points about things I'd blog about if I had more time:

* CNSNews is reporting that the global warming bill passed by the House could lead to increased regulations on fireworks.

"Americans use more than 200 million pounds of fireworks each year, the majority on July Fourth. Because fireworks emit carbon dioxide (CO2) as they burn, however, the fireworks industry may come under tighter regulation if cap-and-trade legislation passes in the Senate in coming months."

We have plenty of regulations on fireworks already - and local noise ordinances to boot. But none of that seems to matter when it comes to the Fourth of July celebrations. What makes anyone think that new regulations on fireworks because of the global-warming charade will have any impact whatsoever? And what could be more unpatriotic than to disallow the celebration of our liberties by infringing upon them in the name of some cooked-up crisis?

* "Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It" That's the headline in a story yesterday about when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was asked "whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote."

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

“Members clearly--and staff and review boards, they read them in their entirety. They go over it with members, and members read substantial portions of the bill themselves, but the issue is--I don’t know who signed this (pledge), but frankly the opposition has been very vociferous, not of the verbiage and bill, but on the concept that it incorporates,” Hoyer said.

So the concept that our representatives should read what they vote on prior to voting is what he opposes? Amazing - just simply amazing!

* I might have missed it over the past couple of days, but I didn't see this story featured prominently in any of the news:

"Washington (CNSNews.com) – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The claims in the report have long been advanced by conservatives, who argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to the economic downfall in 2008.

But the report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie -- government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms -- “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

“In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate,” says the report, the result of an investigation launched last fall by Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy,” says the report. “While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.”"

Told you so!