Coburn and the 9/11 bill, cont'd
In a post yesterday on the bill extending medical benefits to 9/11 responders, I dismissed Sen. Tom Coburn's argument that the bill hasn't even had a hearing in a committee. But Coburn's office noted that his language was more nuanced, and they've got a case. So here's what Coburn said:
This bill hasn't even been through a committee. We haven't even had the debate on this committee on this bill to know if it's the best thing to do. We haven't even had the testimony.
There was a hearing, and there was testimony. You can watch it here. Coburn didn't attend that hearing, which undercuts his argument. But there wasn't a mark-up of the legislation or a vote in the committee. It was brought straight to the floor. So Coburn was partly right and partly wrong: There was testimony, and you can argue there was debate. But there wasn't the sort of debate you'd get in a mark-up, and the bill didn't go "through" a committee. I don't find this a terribly convincing case against the legislation, but I also don't want to misrepresent it.
| December 23, 2010; 2:45 PM ET
Save & Share: Previous: Chris Christie's Pepsi problem, Part III
Next: Sen. Jeff Merkley: 'This isn't a question of filibuster or no filibuster'
Posted by: jwittner | December 23, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: bmull | December 23, 2010 10:49 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: arnoldkorotkin | December 24, 2010 6:16 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: sdgashasdg | December 28, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse