As the size of reporting staffs shrink, Rep. Joe Salazar appears willing to help out. On Sunday the Democrat from Thornton got a piece of news none of the rest of the Colorado press corps bothered to ferret out.

He found out why Colorado’s senior U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet of Denver was one of 13 Democrats who voted against an amendment on Wednesday that would have allowed Americans to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.

Salazar got to the bottom of it. Sunday morning he posted on Facebook:

“I give my congressional folks the benefit of the doubt when they cast their votes on certain bills or amendments. I know what it’s like casting a vote and people assuming the reason for my vote.

“The same is true with Sen. Michael Bennet’s vote against allowing Americans to purchase cheaper drugs from Canada. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I asked people on Facebook if they had seen any explanation from his office. I even called his D.C. office and requested an explanation. I called around 10 pm DC time so I left a message. My message clearly stated:

“‘This is Colorado State Representative Joe Salazar calling regarding Sen. Bennet’s vote on today’s Canadian drug amendment. I have constituents asking me to find out the reason behind his vote against the amendment. I can be contacted at…..'”

“I did not receive the courtesy of a response from his office. Several days have passed.

“On behalf of my 75,000 constituents, many of whom would have benefited from the amendment, I will endeavor to speak with a human being about his vote. I want to ask questions, hear the responses and formulate my own opinion about the responses.

“I will give Sen. Bennet and his office until Tuesday to provide me the courtesy of a response. If I don’t get a response, I’ll take additional steps to get his attention. I apologize in advance for having to escalate the matter, but as of late, it feels like his office devalues professional courtesy.”

By mid-afternoon the post had received 280 likes and 33 shares. About three hours later, he updated his report:

“I just received a call from Sen. Bennet’s Chief of Staff Jonathan Davidson. He was very apologetic and did not hesitate to answer my questions. I took notes and this is what I was stated:

“1) the amendment was non-binding, thus, raising questions about implementation and enforceability;

“2) While the 2005 information came from the last study of imported drugs from Canada into the US, no recent study had been conducted. However, there is information showing that counterfeit or other concerning drugs are still flowing into the US; and

“3) Track and trade legislation goes into effect this year (I believe that’s what he said). The purpose behind track and trade is to ensure that safe drugs from Canada can be tracked.

“Lastly, there was pushback about concerns that Sen. Bennet voted against the amendment because of Pharma donations. It was strongly noted that people should review his work on trying to negotiate better Rx costs through Medicare, which Pharma hates and is opposed to.

“I am grateful for the response. As I told Jonathan, I will not take a position just yet, I will continue to reserve judgment until I do more research on my own about the amendment. I know non-binding resolutions in Congress are usually used for messaging. I would rather see something binding and enforceable.

“I encourage you to join me in conducting further research on this issue.

“I asked for a response, got one and now I need to educate myself for my constituents.”