Coburn wants to certify bills are read

Sen. Tom Coburn wants his colleagues to prove that reading is fundamental — at least when it comes to the dozens of bills that pass over their desks, often with nary a glance from lawmakers.

The Oklahoma Republican wants senators to certify they’ve read and understood the hundreds of bills that pass each year without any floor debate in the Senate. The effort comes a year after last summer’s “read the bill” campaign highlighted lawmakers who acknowledged they hadn’t read the entire House health care bill, even as they tried to explain its intricacies to constituents.

“The American people never know what we’re doing. They don’t get a hearing. They don’t get to hear the policy debates on both sides of the issue,” Mr. Coburn said Friday as debate on both secret holds and what Mr. Coburn calls secret spending took center stage in the Senate.

Fewer than one in 10 measures the Senate passes actually receives a roll-call vote, according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the rest of those bills pass with just a senator or two on the floor, reading a long list of items that have been approved by the top Democrats and top Republicans, who are supposed to have checked with their caucuses to see if there are any objections.

If no senator objects, then the measures are considered pass by “unanimous consent.”

Oftentimes the measures are formalities, such as recognizing a sports team or authorizing use of government property for a ceremony. But the tactic has also been tried on measures to spend billions of dollars on extended unemployment benefits or to extend some stimulus bill spending.

Mr. Coburn’s amendment requires bills to be available for 72 hours before they are voted on and for senators to affirm in writing they have read and understand the measures and any costs associated with any bills that senators try to pass by unanimous consent.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, speaking on the Senate floor Friday, called the certification “a little paternalistic” but said she would still like to co-sponsor the amendment.

“The other parts of his amendment are much better,” she told reporters later, pointing to the waiting period for senators to digest bills. “Seventy-two hours — it’s just a good habit.”

But she and fellow Democrats said the real problem is senators who secretly withhold consent, thereby blocking nominations or bills from moving along.

Democrats say there are 107 nominees waiting for confirmation right now, compared with just eight at this point in President George W. Bush’s tenure, and they blame Republicans for objecting.

Usually, the person who is objecting isn’t even known because the Republicans’ leader or his designee makes the objection on behalf of the unnamed senator.

Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, are trying to require that senators who block unanimous consent to a nominee or bill submit their objection into the Congressional Record, so the public can know who is holding up action.

Holds are not a problem in the House, where floor debate is strictly regimented and controlled by rules for debate.

But in both chambers, lawmakers failing to read legislation have provoked bipartisan outrage.

Story Continues →