Legislative Suggestions – A Personal Perspective

Over the holidays I was asked by a friend why I suggested changes to legislation that I wrote about in my blog posts. She did not understand why I wrote the blog in the first place, not getting paid for it and all, but she was really surprised that I thought that I had any possibility of influencing what happened in Washington. It was an interesting conversation, but I thought it might be worthwhile to explain some of my motivations and intentions here.

Family Tradition

First off, I grew up in a house that demonstrated that involved politically individuals could make a difference. I saw my father start a neighborhood activism movement in San Jose, California in the 60’s as he fought to get streetlights installed in the housing tract in which we lived. His success in our neighborhood led to the establishment of a large number of homeowner associations in the San Jose that had a positive effect on the early growth of that city and he remained an influential figure in the movement until we left that city in 1969.

My mother’s involvement in the Republican Women movement likewise showed me that a personal involvement in politics could lead to effects at the State and national level. And my personal involvement in the movement to succeed from Los Angeles County helped to form the fledgling Santa Clarity County in Southern California. It truly is a family tradition.

Chemical Facility Security News

When I started this blog back in 2007 it was as much a networking tool as anything else. I was an out-of-work chemist who had done little to extend his influence or connections beyond the job that no longer needed me. To make the job search more productive, I started writing about two things that I was strongly interested in, chemical safety and security. The inauguration of the CFATS program fit right into those concerns.

As the blog progressed over the years it began to take on a life of its own; it was no longer just a networking too. I expanded the topics that I covered to include other areas that impacted chemical safety and security including coverage of legislative matters; talking about and explaining bills that could end up having impacts on chemical safety and security. I frequently found those congressional legislative efforts ineffective or counterproductive, so I increasingly spoke out about those problems when writing about the bills as they meandered through the legislative process.

I learned early in both my military career and my chemical career that superiors did not appreciate my ability to point out problems to them unless I could also at least propose a solution to those problems. During the debate about creating an actual legislative basis for the existing CFATS program, a program that was after all designed to be an interim program, I created a draft bill on a now defunct WIKI site, WriteTheBillWiki.com. It did not get anywhere, though I did have some interesting phone conversations about the bill for a while. But, my current habit of proposing language to improve legislation really started with that effort and has become an more common part of my legislative critiques in this blog.

The Intention

Okay, while I would certainly like to see the language changes that I propose in this blog show up in amended versions of the bill, that is not really my intent. I am trying to demonstrate that the purpose of my criticism is not to denigrate the work done by the congressional staffers that actually write these bill or oppose their efforts, but rather help them make their bill a more effective tool at fixing real problems.

You see, I think that a major part of the political problems that we currently face in this country are based on a very parochial outlook on the part of most politicians; we hear too much of ‘do it my way’ instead of ‘lets figure out how to fix this problem’. With the ‘do it my way’ approach, our institutions are now spending too much time trying to erase what the last guy did rather than trying to fix what needs to be fixed.

I DO NOT want to be part of that problem. I would much rather try to be able to say: “I see what you are trying to do. I do not agree with all of it, but I think it would work better if you tried this.” I do not expect an ‘Oh obviously, great idea’ response to these suggestions (though of course they are great ideas, just ask me – grin). What I am more hoping for is: “Hmmm. I didn’t think of that, but maybe if I tried this instead….” If the person realizes that I am trying to help rather than oppose, maybe he will be more willing to listen to my arguments.

But, this is not just about congressional staffers. It is also about engaging with the community that those laws and regulations will ultimately effect. A sizeable percentage of my readers are Washington insiders according to Google, but most are not. Those of you who do not have day-to-day impact on the legislative process should also be taking part in this conversation. If you do not agree with what I suggest, let me know; contact me and suggest your own alternatives or even just explain why you think I am wrong. Help me make my suggestions better.

And if you do agree, send a copy of my blog posts to your congresscritter. Be part of the conversation because we need it to be a conversation not a yelling match.

BTW: Read carefully some of my blog posts and you will realize that I have made a difference in some legislative language, my language was not used, but some of the problems I identified were addressed.