Reply #26: Thank you

[karynnj]

I think for both HRC and Obama need to somehow get people to understand how things are done. In 2004, one of the "fact" checkers used Thomas (the Congressional record system) to dispute Senator Kerry's claim on the number of bills that his name was on. This happened because they looked only at the ones the system listed him as "sponsor" for - which they had one field. So, if in a Republican controlled Senate Kerry and McCain sponsored a bill for veterans - the system showed McCain as the sponsor and Kerry would be listed first on the co-sponsor list. Therefore, the fact check did not give him credit.

In addition since 2004, I have found that it is fun to watch the committee meetings. Most bills are huge and in the mark ups, you see the provisions debated and/or voted on in committee. I find it interesting because you see more of who the Senators or Congressmen are. You see who bring up the best questions and how they adapt to new information in a few cases. The point is that very substantiative pieces of work are simply included within a bill. For instance, in the stimulus package there is a provision by Kerry and Smith to deal with some parts of the mortgage problem. If the Senate bill passes with it in and the house agrees to it and Bush passes it - that will be an important piece of work - but it will not have Kerry's or Smith's name on it. (Oddly, the Boston Herald, but not the Globe covered it. http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1070479 )

Even people not on committee's will sometimes be able to get the managers of bills to add things. This can sometimes be seen watching the Senate floor when after a sponsor of an amendment the sponsor of the bill accepts it into the bill or the provision is allowed in via a voice vote. The first time, in 2005, I saw the first was an amendment to let surviving spouses to stay for a year in Military housing - after Kerry spoke of how this very inexpensive change could allow these people to figure out their future without having to make an abrpt move - Warner added it. In Fall 2006, Kerry's sense of the Senate resolution for Bush to have a regional summit was included after a voice vote in a defense appropriations bill. It was a part of Kerry/Feingold that Warner liked and was willing to include. It was important as the first call of this sort actually passed, but other than the Senate Record, the only place I saw it was as a press release on Kerry's web site.

In addition, a bill that is before it's time can be introduced to socialize the ideas. Many of the campaign finance bills were this way. Biden had one in the 1970s. Kerry and Wellstone had one in the the 1990s. They were far more serious reform than McCain/Feignold and the Kerry/Wellstone one was used as a model for the Arizona bill. Also, some bills are introduced and then morph into a different bill, often taking language from the former. S-CHIP began as an entitlement bill written by Kennedy and Kerry. Kennedy worked with Hatch to get the (non-entitlement) S-CHIP bill that gives the state's more ability to design their program.

I apologize for using Kerry examples - but they are the ones I know - also as he is not running - he can be a non-partisan example. The same things happen on their committees. In 2008, if HRC or Obama are questioned as not having done something because it's "not their bill", if we can show that they DID do what they said - we can push back.