When asked recently if he thought members of
the House of Representatives should read the crucial,
history-making health-care bill they were scheduled
to vote on, the house majority leader laughed
at the reporter's question.The Maryland Democrat,
Steny Hoyer, explained, "I'm laughing because
I don't know how long this bill is going to be,
but it's going to be a very long bill."
Hoyer's amusement drew a quick rebuke from Jerrol
LeBaron, executive director of Honor In Office,
a Los Angeles non-partisan citizens group that
seeks to require by law that California legislators
read what they vote on.
"When legislators vote on bills they haven't
read, they base their decisions on the urging
of lobbyists, campaign contributors, aides, other
legislators, political parties and special-interest
groups, who themselves have probably read only
parts of the proposed laws," said LeBaron. "Buried
in virtually all important bills are clauses written
by lobbyists and congressional staffers that can
have dramatic effects on public policy. "The
elected representatives rarely see them. We elect
legislators to do their own due diligence and
study the laws they're enacting for their constituents.
When they fail in this, as they do nearly every
single time they vote, there are two people that
they are absolutely not representing - you and
me."
LeBaron noted that lawmakers are self-governing,
writing their own ethical standards.
"Look where that's led us. It's like the Mafia
or the drug cartels telling law enforcement that
police aren't needed because they can monitor
themselves. That's absurd. It's time we set some
laws for our legislators to follow."
In pressing for reform, LeBaron drew a line between
parties' competing interests and the necessary
consideration of public laws.
"There is a difference between party bickering
and honest debating. Debating is the formal process
where our legislators make a law as good as it
can possibly be by discussing it in minute detail.
You can't do this responsibly until the bill has
been fully read and understood. Any good debater
knows that he or she has to understand the subject
being debated. That's Debating 101, and it's common
sense. Instead we get slipshod laws, poorly thought
out, with catastrophic consequences.
"Last fall's $0.7 trillion bailout of the
criminally negligent financial sector is a disastrous
example. Our politicians stampeded into emergency
legislation and got it wrong. Our families and
kids will be paying long after the current crop
of delinquent legislators is gone. The only way
to get it right is to thoroughly understand the
bill. It's time we put our politicians on notice.
Do your job! Read the Bill!"
The web site for the group pressing the Honor
In Office Act is www.honorinoffice.org
--------- Nancy Knight is the Editor and Publisher
of The Bugle.
