Doesn't any member of congress actually *read* bills before they pass 'em?

It's been a cliche in Washington for decades that virtually no senator or representative actually reads the bills they pass.

Reason is, congresswhores are all very important people with lots of demands on their time.  Why should they take many hours of their oh-so-precious time to actually read a bill when they can have a staffer brief them on what the significant provisions are their intended effect.

There are only a dozen huge things wrong with this:  First, it's quite likely that a lot of congresswhores don't bother taking the time to get fully briefed by their staff analysts either, for the same reason they don't read the damn bills:  Takes way, way too much time.

Second:  If you've ever read the text of a passed law you know the damn things are absolutely loaded with references to numbered subparagraphs on far-away pages, sometimes even numbered 'grafs of other laws.  Stuff like "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9(f)(3)(iii), any grants awarded under this act shall be deemed tax deductible under the provisions of Public Law 96-124(4)g(iv)."  Unless you have a comprehensive, searchable database of the complete code of federal regulations--and a lot of time--the normal reader can't really easily determine the effect.

As a result, lots of things get passed that no one ever knew about except the leaders of the majority party and the member who actually drafted and submitted the language.  (And the party leaders only know because the drafting member has to tell them what he's doing.  If he doesn't do that he'll never get a decent committee assignment again.)

Example: Say a company wants to take a tax deduction for some investment that the tax code doesn't consider deductible.  Company head "bundles" $200,000 or so for the party that has majority control of both houses and the WH, and voila! a single sentence is added to a sure-to-pass amendment in some 2000-page bill--say, Defense or a farm bill--stating that companies located in state X and making chrome-plated left-handed widgets can deduct all expenses incurred in doing Y.  Except that's disguised as a waiving of the provisions of section 3.5(f)8(iii) of Public Law 98-xxx, so no one even bothers checking the reference.

The longer a bill gets, the easier it is to hide stuff like this.  For example, last I heard Obamacare is now 2300 pages long, and the so-called immigration "reform" bill is over 1100.  That much gobbledygook offers a LOT of space for shady provisions to hide.

For example, take the senate version of the immigration bill.  According to senator Jeff Sessions a slew of new amendments were "dropped on the Senate floor” on Friday. “Members and staff have only until Monday afternoon to read through this modified proposal.”

Sessions charged that one of the amendments would allow aliens who overstayed their visa to still apply for a green card and become a citizen--in effect creating permanent amnesty.

“It is permanent lawlessness,” Session said. “Joined with existing language that restricts future enforcement, it guarantees unending illegal immigration.”


Sessions also noted that under the reform bill that failed in 2007, amnesty applicants had to pay up to $8,000 in fines or penalties, but the current bill cuts this to just $2,000 — and even this amount “subject to numerous waivers."

But not to worry, citizen:  senators have until Monday to discover the scores of little surprises deliberately inserted into this abomination by the Democrat leadership at the last minute.  That's plenty of time, eh?