Put bills online before vote

[VulcanRider]

From the Olympia, WA paper's site The Olympian:

Most Americans assume that federal legislation is thoroughly aired, cussed and discussed, before it’s brought to the floor for a vote. That’s not always the case. Too often, bills are passed in a “sneak attack,” with no public notice and limited debate. Rep. Brian Baird, a Democrat from Vancouver, is disgusted with the practice and has called on Congress to pass House Resolution 688, which would require that bills be posted on the Internet 72 hours prior to a floor vote. It’s a terrific idea that Congress should adopt as part of a comprehensive package to regain the public’s trust in the wake of corruption allegations. Promised reforms Earlier this year, lobbyist Jack Abramoff admitted guilt in a congressional influence-peddling scandal that has majority Republicans ducking for cover and promising all kinds of reforms to open up the lawmaking process to more scrutiny. Regrettably, momentum for serious ethical reforms appears to have stalled, further diminishing the chances for passage of Baird’s rule-change proposal. If Republicans are serious about transparency in government, they will give Baird’s resolution serious consideration. The southwest Washington congressman, who represents much of Olympia and Thurston County, can rattle off a long list of legislation that has been passed without sufficient time for members of Congress to even read the conference report. When the Medicare prescription drug bill came up for a vote in 2003, Baird took to the floor to protest the short time frame for lawmakers to read the bill. “The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules pointed out that this is one of the most important bills we have faced possibly in our careers,” Baird said. “Indeed, he is correct. Yet, we are given less than 24 hours to consider this. The most important bill in our careers — 24 hours to consider it.” Baird noted that Congress had “either authorized or appropriated more than $1.26 trillion of the people’s money,” with only three hours to study the defense authorization bill in 2003. The intelligence authorization bill was up for a vote just eight hours after its release. That’s ludicrous. Rafael DeGennaro, founder and president of ReadtheBill.org, said: “Imagine if the Medicare prescription drug bill had been on the Internet for 72 hours before Congress voted. It would not have ended up in its current half-baked form.” Sunshine at the Capitol DeGennaro has called on Congress to vote on Baird’s resolution by Election Day. “It’s time to stop passing bills in the dead of night that nobody has read,” DeGennaro said. “We want sunshine at the Capitol by November. Any member of Congress who opposes this 72-hour online reform is part of the problem in Washington, D.C.” Congress does have a so-called three-day rule that requires legislation to be available to members of Congress, but not the public, for three calendar days. As DeGennaro says, “The three-day rule is vague, obsolete and routinely waived.” House rules, for example, waive the three-day rule for the last six days of a Congressional session — a time when many bills generally work their way through the process. Low esteem Hasty consideration of legislation without proper vetting is part of the reason Congress is held in such low esteem by members of the public. Lawmakers and the public are not well served by legislation rammed through in the middle of the night with minimal scrutiny. Baird’s proposed rule, which requires only adoption by the U.S. House of Representatives to take effect, exempts acts of war and national emergencies from the 72-hour rule. With a two-thirds majority vote, members of Congress could also suspend the 72-hour rule for any legislation. Those are sufficient safeguards to ensure the smooth flow of legislation through Congress. What Baird’s proposed rule does is empower the public and provides citizens with an opportunity to voice their opinions BEFORE legislation is adopted. It also gives members of Congress time to look for serious flaws before they vote. Imagine that, school superintendents and parents being able to read No Child Left Behind before it’s voted upon. Imagine Medicare parents brought into the loop before the prescription drug bill is passed. It’s not too much to ask in a democratic society.

More at www.readthebill.org. I *think* bills today are supposed to be available 3 days in advance, but only to representatives, and that rule is routinely waived, plus riders get tacked on that have nothing to do with the original bill and I don't think those get even that level of review. This would give the press & Joe Citizen a chance to read & comment on it before it's voted on. Sounds like a great idea to me.

[True_Moose]

The more information, the better. They should make sure that there is some central place where you can find all the bills - otherwise, they could just try to hide them in some corner of a website somewhere. It's a good idea though.

[Azred]

It would be easy enough to set up a link from the main pages of the Congress or Senate's websites.

It might take 72 hours to read some bills, though, and the average person won't understand the average bill in only 72 hours. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

I doubt they really want us to know. I respect the spirit of this bill, but I seriously doubt the motive in an election year.

72 hours is nothing but lip-service, as in lips to the voter's asses. I think 6 weeks is the proper amount of time to read leglislation and provide feedback.

[VulcanRider]

But proposing to "freeze" a bill for 6 weeks before it can be voted on would never pass. It would be easier to pass the 3 day law, then push to extend it, than to try for a longer time frame up front.