The Weekly Standard published a piece on its blog reporting that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had broken her pledge to post the health care bill on the internet for 72 hours before a vote was held.
The Standard says, "House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order."
"On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was 'absolutely' committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:
TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.
"But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: 'No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that.'"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
Did I miss the logic?
What do I do about the parts negotiated after the posting of the draft? Do I just have to let those go without scrutiny? What's to stop them from posting the non-controversial stuff in the draft, allowing me to review and comment, but keeping the tough stuff until the last minute before the vote when the public has no opportunity for review?
Do you remember candidate Obama saying he would not sign a bill unless it had been posted in its final form for 5 days so the public could review and comment? What happened to that?
That doesn't make any sense. How can it be final if you haven't read the draft and contributed to making it final?
What do I do about the parts negotiated after the posting of the draft? Do I just have to let those go without scrutiny?
Huh? Again, that doesn't make any logical sense. You are negotiating the parts, so you have scrutinized the draft AND the parts you negotiated to be changed.
Your entire premise is that you don't want to contribute to making legislation until it is already been done by others, then complain that you didn't have any input to making the legislation.
That doesn't make any sense.
I'm willing to read the draft. I'd then like to read the final with sufficient time to do so before the vote. But that's not what's happening. The draft is posted and a vote is scheduled, and as already noted, negotiations take place until the moment the vote happens. Ms. Pelosi will not commit to posting the final version for any length of time before the vote. Why would that be?
That's the part you seem to be missing. We will NOT have the opportunity see the final version. We can read the draft and offer our comments. But we won't see the end result before it is voted on (well, maybe a few hours before, but is that really enough time for 2,000 pages?).
"Your entire premise is that...."
That's not true. I'm happy to contribute through the entire process. The problem is that we are not included in the entire process. There is no plan to make public for 72 hours (even that is not enough time) the final version that will be voted on. How will you know what's in it when the vote is taking place?
LOL Wall St. will get the same health care Congress gets... and we will be doing group Dr. appoints like in MA.
~~~