I've been a ballbuster on Kent Conrad lately -- and he deserves it. But credit where credit is due, he nailed a Republican during markup this week. It wasn't as much of a zinger as Senator Stabenow's takedown of Jon Kyl, but it was still pretty solid. Wonky, but solid.
Republican Jim Bunning wanted the Finance Committee bill to be written in legalese, rather than the plain English like all other Finance Committee bills. Of course Bunning's request was a deliberate stall tactic.
Rising to defend plain English bills was Kent Conrad.
"We write our bills in plain English so the members can understand them, and so the public can understand them. …To most people, legislative language is gobbledy-gook."
Conrad then proceeded to give an example of exactly what such "goobledy-gook" would sound like. Speaking in a droning, robotic monotone, Conrad read off the section of the bill that discussed how a certain "section K-1" would be "determined under Paragraph Two for the area of the month, IV," with the "applicable amount as defined in the subsection K1 for the area for the year … for the area for the month in 2013 so determined by national per capita growth area."
Conrad's legalese drew some giggles and guffaws from the crowd. This prompted Bunning to try and brandish his wonkish cred by trying to translate the legalese back into plain English. "You're talking about home [health care] providers in metropolitan services areas that include parts of CMS," Bunning responded.
Actually -- not so much.
"The Senator thought the language had to do with home health -- it had to do with Medicare Advantage," Conrad responded triumphantly.
Oh snap!
I imagine this sort of thing happens all the time. I need to track down the transcript of the debate on Ensign's "Transparency in Czars" amendment. I wonder if anyone told him.