Transparency on health care reform, other bills, please
- Oct 27, 2009 - 1 -
Before signing the papers for a car loan or mortgage, wise buyers take a close look at the agreement to which they are binding themselves. It seems only logical that Congress would do the same—and give their constituents that courtesy as well—before voting to spend billions of dollars on new programs and sending taxpayers the tab.
Yet the power wielders on Capitol Hill have repeatedly rushed 1,000-page bills through the legislative chambers this year, with little or no time for their congressional colleagues or the public to read them. Topping 1,100 pages and $787 billion, the “stimulus” package was brought to the House floor for a vote just 13 hours after the final text was made available. No congressman claims to have read it before voting “yes.”
A cap-and-trade bill, more than 1,400 pages in legislative text, was rammed through the House a mere 16 hours after a 300-page amendment was added at 3:09 a.m. that day. Congress never even saw the final text before Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) brought this largest tax increase in American history to a vote. Now, with the White House and many in Congress determined to ram through health care reform, the issue of transparency comes to the fore.
That’s why a sizeable delegation of Congress is pushing a requirement that non-emergency bills be made available online for at least 72 hours before the House votes on them.
The Democratic House leadership, though, is uninterested in bringing up the rules change for consideration, despite the fact that 83 percent of Americans support it. To overcome this roadblock, Reps. Greg Walden (R-WA) and Brian Baird (D-OR) have filed a discharge petition on H. Res. 554, meaning the House will immediately consider the bill if 218 congressmen, a simple House majority, sign the petition. So far 182 members have signed. Surprisingly, 33 of the congressmen who are cosponsors of the bill have not added their names to the petition.
Such transparency would seem to be in keeping with President Obama’s promises for “sunlight.” While campaigning for president, he assured the American people that transparency would be a defining mark of his administration: “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you, the public, will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing.”
Regarding health care reform, the president also promised, “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN. The people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.”
But closed-door negotiations and hastily signed bills are casting shadows instead of the promised sunlight. With health care reform positioned to overhaul nearly one-sixth of the U.S. economy, it is all the more important that Congress and the public be given ample opportunity to review what’s at stake.
Last month, a majority of the Senate Finance Committee rebuffed efforts to require a 72-hour waiting period before voting on its health care bill. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) described the proposed amendment as “a delay tactic,” adding that “the legislative language, everybody knows, is relatively arcane, legalistic, and most people don’t read the legislative language.”
Arcane and legalistic or not, the stakes are high. The drivers of health care reform are intent on providing federal coverage for abortion, as well as including a government-run option, which would possibly slash Medicare benefits, raise health care premiums, and crowd out private insurance. A little transparency should not be too much to ask.
If you agree, please urge your representative to add his or her name to the discharge petition on H.Res. 554 to make bills available online to the public 72 hours before Congress considers them. You can see if he or she has signed onto the discharge petition here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Healthcare, Legislation,
The comment thread for this article is now closed. Please use our contact form.
{comment_total} comments
1 On Oct 29th, 2009, at 8:33pm, Richard Humphries wrote:
This has been a subject of discussion for the last 100 years and on the front pages of America for the last 20. Universal Halth Care for every American is a moral/ethical issue. How we get there, I agree, is a political one.
Opponents to Health Care like yourself are blind to the fact that next to food, clothing and shelter, Health Care is a necessity of all. Most Industrialized Countries understood that years ago.
A healthy nation is key to hope for a better tomorrow.
Dick