Just for the historical record, the first mention of "blogging" on the House floor, according to a text search of Thomas, was by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), on January 5, 2005. Unfortunately, he was not expressing as enlightened a view of the value of bloggers as was Senator Cornyn. Though he was quoting a Democrat disparaging bloggers, so we've got bipartisan agreement on the lack of value of blogging as the first reference during Congressional debate. The context is the floor debate on the validity of the election returns from Ohio. Hayworth said:

"The problem we confront with this debate is that it serves to plant the insidious seeds of doubt in the electoral process. All the talk of election reform, all the talk of hearings that the leader championed, all the process complaints, some that are inaccurate that have come from the other side, are points to be debated in the regular business of this House. Yes, they are important. But to disrupt the Electoral College, to say in effect, hey, we just want to shine light on this problem, is not the proper use of the people's time. And with all due respect, I question not the intent; but the net effect is this: again, it is to place doubt and to institutionalize forever the notion of grumbling and a lack of acceptance of the verdict of the people. In less elevated terms, Mr. Speaker, it is called sour grapes; and it is sad to see in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this view is not shared universally, despite the kind words for the Member who brought this from her friends on that side of the aisle. Listen to the comments from Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade: 'I'd give my right arm for Internet rumors of a stolen election to be true, but blogging doesn't make it so. We can change the future; we can't rewrite the past.'"

And it's been entered into the record a few times, too - but hey - you can't blame the Senate for being a bit slow, it's pretty much their nature.