Replies to post #80075 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Lawmakers, Read Your Bills

[This is an op-ed piece in Sunday’s Boston Globe.]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/07/12/lawmakers_read_the_bills_before_you_vote/

›By Jeff Jacoby
July 12, 2009

Say, did you hear the one about the congressman who was asked to do his job? Talk about funny - this will crack you up!

Well, maybe it won’t. But Steny Hoyer thought it was hilarious.

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.

That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘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,’ he said.’’

Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.

“Transparency’’ is a popular buzzword in good-government circles, and politicians are forever promising to transact the people’s business in the sunshine. But as Hoyer’s mirth suggests, when it comes to lawmaking, transparency is a joke. Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages. A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House. And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:

“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’’

Ramming legislation through Congress so quickly that neither lawmakers nor voters have time to read and digest it is a bipartisan crime; Republicans have been as guilty of it as Democrats. The 341-page Patriot Act, to mention just one notorious example, was introduced in the Republican-controlled House on Oct. 23, 2001, brought to a vote on Oct. 24, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Senate on Oct. 25, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26.

Such efficiency is no virtue when it comes to lawmaking, which is why every member of Congress should be pressed to sign the pledge Hoyer was asked about. It is sponsored by a grass-roots conservative group, Let Freedom Ring, and is readily accessible online. Equally worthy of support is ReadTheBill.org, which is backed by a coalition of liberal organizations. Still another push comes from the libertarian group Downsize DC, which urges Congress to pass its proposed Read The Bills Act.

Senators and representatives who vote on bills they haven’t read and don’t understand betray their constituents’ trust. It is no excuse to say that Congress would get much less done if every member took the time to read every bill. Fewer and shorter laws more carefully thought through would be a vast improvement over today’s massive bills, which are assembled in the dark and enacted in haste.

Steny Hoyer chortles at the thought of asking members of Congress to do their job properly. It’s up to voters to wipe the grin off his face.‹

[DewDiligence]

[OT] ConocoPhillips’ CFO said on a CC today that he does not expect Congress to act on the “cap & trade” bill until at least 2011. My response to this is hallelujah!

[DewDiligence]

[OT] Update on ‘Cap & Trade’ bill: #msg-40453185.

[DewDiligence]

‘Cap & Trade’ Is Dead, Says Harry Reid

[Yeehaw—I thought ‘cap & trade’ was one of the dumbest legislative initiatives ever to be broached by the US Congress. Regrettably—and independently of the demise of cap & trade—the possibility of a government incentive to foster the use of natural gas in place of oil seems to be faltering.]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383373600358634.html

›JULY 22, 2010, 4:21 P.M. ET
By STEPHEN POWER

WASHINGTON—The U.S. Senate is shelving efforts to pass legislation that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to climate change, dealing a major blow to one of President Barack Obama's top priorities.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said Thursday that neither he nor the White House had persuaded 60 senators to support even a limited proposal seeking to restrict emission from electric-power companies. Mr. Reid offered no timetable for action on such a bill, but said Democrats would continue trying to build support for such legislation.

Mr. Reid said the party's leadership will push instead for more limited legislation, aimed at holding oil giant BP PLC "accountable" for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Specifically, he said the measure would include a provision to remove the cap on economic damages paid to residents and small businesses by oil companies after oil spills. Mr. Reid said the bill would also include incentives to encourage the production and purchase of vehicles fueled by natural gas, and to fund various land and water-conservation programs.

"This is what we can do now," Mr. Reid said. He blamed the Senate's failure to enact limits on greenhouse-gas emissions on Republicans, even though some members of his own party have for months objected to the idea.

"We are not putting forth this bill in place of a comprehensive bill" to limit emissions, Mr. Reid said. "But we will not pass up the opportunity to hold BP accountable, lessen our dependence on oil, create good-paying American jobs and protect the environment."

Republicans rejected Mr. Reid's effort to blame them for the political failure of the cap and trade proposal. "His own party doesn't support the idea," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska).

Mr. Reid's decision to shelve a vote on greenhouse-gas emissions risks disappointing the party's liberal base ahead of fall elections that are already expected to be difficult for the party.

It's not clear how many of the provisions that Mr. Reid is promising to include in the bill will survive a Senate floor debate. Republicans have objected to proposals to eliminate the cap on oil companies' liability for damages related to spills—currently set at $75 million—on the grounds that it would make offshore drilling unaffordable for all but the largest oil companies and foreign-owned nationalized oil giants.

Some business groups are also rallying to defeat the provisions related to natural gas.

On Thursday, hours before Mr. Reid spoke to reporters, more than five dozen trade groups and corporations representing farmers and manufacturers—including Dow Chemical Co., the National Corn Growers Association and Kimberly-Clark Corp.—released a letter calling on the Senate not to include any provisions in energy legislation that would "artificially" increase demand for natural gas in the power and transportation sectors—an apparent reference to Mr. Reid's support for tax breaks for purchasers of natural-gas vehicles and incentives to build natural-gas fueling stations.

Those provisions have been championed by some natural-gas producers, who have pointed to the growing domestic discoveries of natural gas as evidence that natural gas can provide the U.S. economy with a "bridge fuel" from oil to lower carbon sources of energy. In their letter Thursday, however, the corporations and farm groups said they worry such incentives—along with potential new state and federal regulations on shale drilling—could result in a supply crunch, causing higher electricity prices and the shift of more domestic manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.‹