U.S. Rep Brian Baird said Friday that he will consider voting against a health care reform bill if Congress is not given enough time to read it.
The Vancouver Democrat says he is continuing an ongoing push to implement his bill that would require a 72-hour waiting period before Congress votes on legislation, during which time the bills would be posted online for public viewing.
The measure would require a two-thirds vote to overturn the requirement on each item of legislation.
Baird voted against a $43 billion spending bill last week that included $1.3 million for flood control projects currently being studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
After the vote, he said he had made the decision because the House of Representatives was given only 19 hours to read the 400-page document.
On Thursday, he said he again voted against legislation based on what he described as an inadequate amount of time for Congress to read it.
This time it was a $600 billion defense spending authorization spread over 2,000 pages, Baird said.
“It’s not because I don’t care about the nation’s defense, but because we had 24 hours to read it. … If you do care about national defense, shouldn’t you care enough to read it?” Baird said.
When asked if he will consider voting against health care reform on the same principle, he said “Absolutely. That’s a given.”
Baird and U.S. Rep. Greg Walden are sponsoring a petition that would force his 72-hour bill to the House floor for a vote. At last count, the petition had 181 of the 218 Congressional signatures required.
Baird has been working toward passing the bill for five years, he said.
“I’m going to keep hammering on it,” Baird said.
Baird also hit back at criticism from Olympia financial adviser David Castillo and Washougal City Council member Jon Russell, both of whom have registered as Republicans for the 2010 3rd District Congressional Race.
Castillo called Baird’s vote on last week’s spending bill a “cynical political ploy” while Russell amounted the vote as a “stunt” that plays politics with the safety of his constituents.
They also criticized Baird for not taking a stand against weighty legislation like the sweeping climate change bill and bailouts he voted in favor of earlier this year.
Baird said the criticism of his recent votes were wrong on facts, reasoning and history.
He said it leads him to believe that they would vote on legislation without ample time to read it.
“It implies that they would vote for tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in spending without reading the bill,” he said. “They can’t have it both ways.”
Baird has yet to announce whether or not he supports current health care bills working through the House and Senate.
randydutton
Baird is correct to push for a minimum 72 hour wating period before a vote (I prefer 5 days). Any Congressional rep who signs a bill they haven't read is guilty of gross negligence and should be impeached (or voted out). And his critics are wrong to call his bill a stunt. That said, Baird also should realize the Cap & Tax bill is a con job designed to separate those who create jobs from their money. And Baird also shouldn't support bailouts of failed business plans. Baird forever is connected to the most CORRUPT CONGRESS in history. How he redeems himself is unknown.
Intrepid
It appears once again Brian Baird is attempting to grandstand. Much as he did last week in not voting for the funds for the Army Corps of Engineers, he is again vacillating. We need a representative who will stand true to his principles and look out not only for the immediate community, but also the safety of our troops fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. David Castillo is that representative. He will not play politics with our troops and fellow citizens. http://www.castilloforcongress.com/home/
LewWaters
It looks like congressman Baird is getting worried. With a strong challenger like David Castillo, I can't say I blame him.How hypocritical of Baird to say, “It implies that they would vote for tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in spending without reading the bill,” when that is exactly what he did earlier this year in two massive bills that plunge America deeper into debt.Baird says, “They can’t have it both ways.” Yet, isn't that exactly what he has been doing?Note also during the town halls, every reply of his I heard was in defense of or supportive of the Universal health care proposals. If he were truly undecided, would he not agree more with constituents who have grave concerns over the bills?When Baird entered office he advocated a 12-year term limit. 2010 is his twelfth year. He is not limiting himself now.So, who wants it both ways?It's time for change and fresh representation in the 3rd Congressional District. It's time for David Castillo, a true advocate for the people.
CastilloForCongress
Baird once again shows he is a weak political leader who is unable to accept responsibility for his ineffectiveness as a Congressman. He also shows an inability to stand up to criticism that points to his very real hypocrisy.Hey, Brian, you didn't vote for "tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in spending" like you falsely accuse your challengers of being willing to do. You voted to spend TRILLIONS of hard-working American's tax dollars and you DIDN'T read the bill.Furthermore, you did vote for Cap & Trade as well as TARP without the public having a change to review it. Now you stand on your heartfelt principle when it means money for flood control in your own district. And go even one worse - you are willing to play politics with the lives of our troops and vote against the defense of this country.Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.It is time for real leadership for the residents of southwest Washington. Visit: www.CastilloForCongress.com