THE HILL
 

House Dems have often waived read-the-bill transparency rules

By Molly K. Hooper - 10/02/09 05:11 AM ET

House Democratic leaders this year have repeatedly waived transparency rules aimed at providing members with enough time to read bills before they vote on them.

House Democratic leaders this year have repeatedly waived transparency rules aimed at providing members with enough time to read bills before they vote on them.

On at least two dozen occasions in 2009, the transparency rules have been shelved — including on votes on wage discrimination, climate change and children’s health insurance, according to statistics culled by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group.

After hearing from disgruntled voters over the August recess, six House Democrats defied their leaders by signing on to a discharge petition calling for action on legislation mandating that all bills be posted online 72 hours before a roll call vote.

Since 1971, House rules contained a similar measure, but with a loophole: The read-the-bill rule could be waived by a majority of members.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has committed to allowing lawmakers to scrutinize the healthcare reform bill 72 hours before it is voted on, but other members say this policy should apply to all legislation, without exception.

Leaders of the majority party in the House frown upon their members signing discharge petitions.

Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.), one of the half-dozen Democrats who has put his name on the discharge petition, said vulnerable Democrats will take a hit politically back home if they don’t sign it.

Baird said, “This is a common-sense, oughta-be-done, good-of-the-country position. If you are not on that position, the question is, why not? And the answer is you are somehow being pressured not to get on it or you have to defend it [with] some arcane, workings-of-the-House, discretion-of-the-majority-leader [argument] — that’s a tough sell when at the end of the day you’re voting for something you haven’t read.”

Democratic leaders are leaning on members not to sign the petition, Baird said, but momentum is building for the measure. Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.) signed it on Thursday.

Should the discharge petition attract 218 votes, the 72-hour bill would hit the House floor. At press time, it had 182 signatories, including all House

Republicans except Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), who has a policy against signing them. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) sponsored the discharge petition seeking a vote on the read-the-bill rule, which was introduced by Baird.

There are 35 Democrats who have backed Baird’s bill and not signed Walden’s petition, including Reps. Chris Carney (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Eric Massa (N.Y.), Mike Ross (Ark.) and Charlie Melancon (La.).

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, calls the concept “sound” but opposes Baird’s resolution because it’s not feasible.

“What if only one short word or amendment is made? It’s one thing initially for a bill to have a long time, but if you come out of a conference and they don’t change anything then, you don’t need 72 hours. Sometimes you are at the end of the session and you don’t have 72 hours,” Hoyer told The Hill in an interview last week.

Baird disagrees. He says that all the “shenanigans” happen in end-of-the-year catchall omnibus spending bills. Baird believes no bill should be exempt from the rule. His measure would require a supermajority (two-thirds) to waive the 72-hour requirement.

A coordinated campaign spearheaded by the Sunlight Foundation, Baird and GOP leaders has kept the pressure on rank-and-file Democrats to challenge their leaders, including President Barack Obama, who promised to give the public five days to read bills before signing them into law.

The White House has broken this campaign promise on at least a couple of bills.

A new Rasmussen poll of 1,000 voters found that 83 percent of the public wants Congress to post legislation online two weeks before voting on it.

When Republicans ran the House, they passed a read-the-bill rule, but it also had holes in it.

Former Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) concedes that his party was guilty of waiving the rule when it was in power.

“Absolutely — it is among the most commonly waived rules the House has,” Dreier said.

The Sunlight Foundation’s Lisa Rosenberg said that, like the Republican majority before them, Democrats have not kept their promise: “The current rule requires that members be able to see legislation for 72 hours before there’s a vote, but from our perspective that isn’t good enough.”

Mary Ann Dreas contributed to this article.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/61285-house-dems-have-often-waived-read-the-bill-transparency-rules

Comments (20)

And add the CBO scoring when appropriate. The article doesn't say it, but this information should be posted on the Internet for public view.BY Humphster on 10/02/2009 at 07:34
Just stay over until the 72 hours occurs. Maybe you Congressman can get off your geisters and legislate for the Taxpayers of the United States instead of padding your buddies pockets. It time for anybody that has been a government parsasite for 20 years or more to RESIGN and get a real job. We are sick of you padding your own pockets.BY Jake2 on 10/02/2009 at 10:04
Look very few if any members of the black caucus can even read. even barac doesn't know how to read and think on his feet. he needs a teleprompter. I'll bet a million that obama and ommama will be out of office in 2012. he's a disgrace. currently hies is sacrificing american troops in afghanistan in order to appease his marxist base. I'm mean this buy is killing american soldiers. the commander in afghanistan has called for 40 thousand more troops. barac is killing americans and jobs.BY Chico Gonzales on 10/02/2009 at 10:16
I haven't had anything good to say about many Democrats lately, so it is with some pleasure that I can say thank you to Rep. Baird, for recognizing the common sense here, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, and for stating the issue "in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent," as it were. Well done, sir, and good luck.BY INTJ on 10/02/2009 at 11:43
I don't recall which Dem said it, but it was well said when he pointed out that reading the bill doesn't mean much if it takes a team of lawyers to understand it. What a posting requirement does is allow outside groups to understand what a bill will do while something can still be done about it and few politicians want that.We need term limits and page limits. No more life-long legislators and no more 1,000 page bills!BY NerdusMaximus on 10/02/2009 at 12:10
CHICO GONZALES, I just love that you put, "even barac doesn't know how to read…" and then "he needs a teleprompter" back-to-back. What do you think is on the teleprompter MORON, pretty pictures and hand gestures. I will be the first one to speak out against the President's policies and the Democratic Party, but when you resort to racist BS to make your arguments, well…I have a hand gesture for you. And, I doubt you will not catch its meaning.BY jraglan on 10/02/2009 at 12:50
I agree with nerdusmaximus. No bill should ever be much longer than the constitution, and no rep or senator should ever be able to hold office for life.BY findthetiger129 on 10/02/2009 at 14:37
I don't think any bill should be passed until it is put on the internet and read by the people and voted on by the people. Let the people decide what their tax money should be spent on. And no more pork !!!!!!!!!!!BY Carolyn Daniel on 10/02/2009 at 18:25
The democrats are proving that they can't be trusted with power. They do not discipline their own. The end justifies the means. Might makes right. Do as I say, not as I do. It is just common sense to be able to understand the bills that will become law. Just as it is common sense to know the projected cost of the bill and how it will be paid for by taxpayers. To refuse to read a bill, to refuse to post a bill for voter review and comment, and to refuse to have the bill scored by the CBO shows that the bill is unworthy of passage, that the Democrats are hiding something within the bill, and that it will be laden with pork projects that we can not afford. I find passing a bill without reading it or scoring it a abdication of their duty as representatives of the people and justification for removing them from office. In any other private sector job, this would be grounds for termination. Can anyone imagine telling a boss that you did not account for the estimated cost of a project? In addition, it is possibly treasonous to vote "YES" on a bill that hasn't been read or scored because there are likely provisions within the bill that do not represent the best interests of the U.S. or its people.BY wary independent on 10/02/2009 at 20:03
If Congress passes a bill without reading it, why should we have to follow and obey the law?BY Nat on 10/02/2009 at 21:23

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.