Senator Bernie Sanders pulls amendment after being told to read it aloud

@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
December 16, 2009 7:35pm CST
I think this is a big victory for the country here. Senator Bernie Sanders attempted to put a 767 page single-payer amendment into the health care bill without letting anyone read it. Senator Coburn objected demanding it be read aloud. I was originally going to make this thread about how glad I was to hear this was being read aloud. That's not going to happen though. This amendment must have been pretty awful because Senator Sanders has decided to pull the amendment for fear of what people will say when they hear what is actually IN the amendment. Democrats really are trying to ram this bill through fast and don't want any delays, especially if those delays lead to people knowing what's in the bill. What are your opinions? Did Coburn do the right thing by demanding this amendment be read aloud? Do you think Sanders pulled the amendment because he was afraid of people discovering what was in it, or because he feared spending hours reading it aloud would hurt the Dems chance to meet their deadline for passing the full bill?
3 people like this
9 responses
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
17 Dec 09
Coburn absolutely did the right thing in objecting and demanding that it be read. If nothing else, it would have set them back a good 17 hours. However, what happened after that was in violation of the rules of the Senate. Once Coburn had the floor - via the reading by the clerk - no interruptions are allowed. Sanders shouldn't have been recognized and should have had to wait till the end to yank the amendment. The rules state: "Under Rule XV, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an amendment shall be read by the Clerk before it is up for consideration or before the same shall be debated unless a request to waive the reading is granted; in practice that includes an ordinary amendment or an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the reading of which may not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent, and if the request is denied the amendment must be read and further interruptions are not in order." But the Democrats allowed further interruptions. They obviously didn't want the amendment as much as they wanted to hurry up the process so they violated their own rules to let Sanders pull his amendment. Every day and in every way these guys in Washington show their contempt for the will of the people and even the rule of law.
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
17 Dec 09
Two thumbs way up for Senator Coburn. Gee, I wish I could see the look on Sanders face when he was told to read it out loud. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a mixture of the two. I mean, if it was a really crappy amendment, can you imagine all the time he'd spend trying to defend every single questionable clause in that 767 page monstrosity?
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
17 Dec 09
I have to correct my statement a bit. Senator Sanders wouldn't have to read it himself, Senate clerks would read it out loud. They actually started and were taking turns just getting through the table of contents before Sanders pulled the amendment.
1 person likes this
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
17 Dec 09
TASKR: Really?? Hot dang! That is raw humor! Oy! Two thumbs waaaay up! Maggiepie "SAY 'MERRY CHRISTMAS!'"
• United States
18 Dec 09
Probably pulled it for both reason.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
17 Dec 09
Come on, Taskr, you know as well as I do that Coburn was only looking to delay the bill in any way possible and that Sanders wasn't afraid of people knowing what was in the amendment, he was afraid that these delay tactics would insure that nothing will be done on health care! Senator Sanders has been on TV just about daily talking about his amendment and his opinions on the bill in general, so why wouldn't he want people to know about it? Coburn is a first class jack-a$$ who should stick to advising his friends on how to get away with paying off their mistresses to keep them quiet! Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
17 Dec 09
I'm not denying for a second that Coburn wanted to delay this bill. The longer this bill sits the more people will learn what's really in it, hence the consistent drop in public support. There's a big difference between being on TV "talking about" an amendment and actually having the specific text of it read out loud. This amendment would have taken an estimated 10-17 hours to read. That can be done in less than 2 days. Why did he not want to spend two more days on this bill? Aside from the tax hikes, none of it goes into effect for another 6 years so what's wrong with two more days? If his amendment was so great, surely he should have WANTED to spend 2 days letting everyone hear how great it was. Please explain to me why he pulled it if he wasn't afraid of people hearing the actual text of it.
• United States
17 Dec 09
I think he was trying to pull a fast one and when caught decided it was better to pull it than have it read out to the whole congress and have the american people know what was in it. Why else would he NOT want it read out loud. It must have been bad.
@dorannmwin (36392)
• United States
21 Dec 09
Since I am not in Senator Sander's mind I can't honestly say if he did the right thing or not. If he decided not to read the amendment because it was a load of trash, then, yes, I do think that he did the right thing. If, however, he decided not to read the amendment because it would take to long to have hope of getting the healthcare bill passed by the date that they want it to happen, then I think that he did the wrong thing.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
21 Dec 09
Why does it matter what date the bill is passed? Reading it aloud would have taken up to two days. Since the bill doesn't really go into effect for 6 years, what does it matter if it takes two more days to pass it?
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
17 Dec 09
Yes, it was a very good thing to force a little light in the direction of the corrupt democrats and their desperate attempts to control all of health care. More importantly it shows how those in office have so corrupted their roles and responsibilities that it is totally unacceptable. The bottom line is when these Congress men and women cast their vote, they really have no idea what they are voting for. Can you even imagine being an elected official and doing your job that way? The 2000 page bills are never read, they contain blank sections to be filled in later. And even after the voting is over, they continue to make changes in the wording. Anywhere in this process, there is always opportunity for someone to insert something else (for the appropriate bribe, of course). I do not think Sanders should have the right to hide what he was proposing. If he was planning on putting it into the health care, then he should be made to pass it out for all to read. What a slime ball!
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
17 Dec 09
Yes, Coburn did he right thing. I think sanders pulled his amendment for both reason described. I think that all amendments should be fully read and understood before being voted on, and that a full oral reading by the sponsors should be required before any bill is put to a vote. I somehow think that these humongous omnibus bills would quickly be thing of the past if that very simple rule were adopted.
@Maggiepie (7816)
• United States
17 Dec 09
Of course he did the right thing by demanding it be read! I think ALL bills should be read aloud, put up on the internet for 30 days, & published in newspapers for at least that long! Isn't everyone aware by now how Congress always loads up their bills with pork & other detrimental things? People who care about this country would pay attention! The rest--the numb-skulls--deserve whatever they get. And yes, I also think he pulled it because he knew it wouldn't fly. Washington D.C. is hyper-aware of how angry we are, & that their jobs are on the line. Look at the pink slip campaign; it's now stacking up to over a half-mile high! I wonder if we could get the entire bill yanked? Maggiepie "SAY 'MERRY CHRISTMAS!'"