|
|
How fast can you read?
You've probably seen the late night and weekend TV commercials that promise to teach you how to speed read. They pitch that for just four easy payments of $19.99, you can get through your favorite novel in a few hours. To some, the ability to read through hundreds of pages in one setting is appealing, to members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Chairman Harkin must think it's a requirement. At 5 p.m., Oct. 3, Chairman Harkin's staff sent a notice to committee members that the Ag Committee would meet at 5 p.m. the next day to "mark-up" the farm bill. According to the rules of the committee, the chairman only needs to give 24 hours notice; however, it is commonly understood that the chairman would provide copies of the legislation at the same time of the notice. In the weeks leading up to Chairman Harkin's decision, both Republicans and Democrats had publicly criticized the chairman for not releasing his farm bill proposal. Harkin had released early copies of some of the titles, but those drafts didn't include funding numbers and Harkin refused to release the key title--the commodity title. In less than 24 hours, committee members and their staff were expected to read through what could be 1,000 pages of legislative language, find out how such a proposal would affect their home state, and then develop and write amendments. This is when those speed reading skills come in handy. As you could imagine, Harkin's colleagues were not pleased and did not keep their displeasure to themselves. Roughly two hours after Chairman Harkin whipped the committee into a frenzy with the meeting notice (and at this time Harkin had only sent around a third of his proposal), the chairman decided to cancel the next day's meeting. This situation brings two observations to mind about the way Washington works. First, what does this say about the leadership of Tom Harkin? It's almost comical. Here the chairman of a committee, who controls the schedule, either can't or won't meet a deadline for which he sets. Missing yet another self-imposed timeline for committee action weakens his position. Why not just put your proposal out for review, take the criticism, work with your colleagues and move forward? What is he scared of and when will he wake up and answer the call of the agriculture community to move ahead? Secondly, this nonsense that major legislation only needs 24 hours or less of scrutiny before the committee with jurisdiction votes on the bill is completely ridiculous. This practice is widespread in both the House and the Senate, in committees and on the floor. Democratic leaders took this same approach with both the energy bill and the immigration bill this year alone. Providing less time to read legislation only benefits the individuals who wrote the bill and restricts opportunities to reach a compromise and address potential concerns. While it may help committee and floor leaders sneak a bill through, it also contributes to decreasing levels of support for Congress. Is it fair to the American people that our leadership puts so little time and effort building consensus in major legislation? Date: 10/10/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
