Read the Bills Act

A lot of really bad legislation gets through our system without adequate debate or understanding--
--only a handful of copies of the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act were available when it was voted on.  None of our representatives read it.
--The Prescription drug bill added at least $500 billion in spending and was rushed to a vote and passed less than a day after it was introduced.

Now there's a bill to require our representatives to read the bills before they vote on them

This bill would require our representatives to
*  Read every word of every bill before a vote can be held on that bill.
 * Read every word of every old law that comes up for renewal under the sunset provisions.
 * Publish every bill on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote is held, to allow time for public comment.

Don't they owe us this minimum of consideration before taking action?
Don't we deserve this level of due diligence?
Isn't it amazing it could take a law to get our representatives to simply do their job?

You may not agree with other efforts the group linked to is undertaking, but isn't this a common sense effort everyone can support?  Follow the link and contact your representatives.

•  The Democrats

  should make this their #1 issue, it's so common sense that the American people can probably get a 51% majority to understand why it's important....or maybe not, what's the literacy rate here anyway?

  by PBJ Diddy on Wed May 25, 2005 at 04:39:56 AM PDT

•  Cripple the government? Bad idea

  I suspect, based on the quote on his page "Skeptical of the power of central authorities to do good" that the diarist's  intention is actually to cripple the Federal government.  If not, then he must understand what an adverse affect this bill will have on our ability to use government as a force for positive change.

  First, the bill is unpractical.  The legislation calls for reading each entire bill on the record while a quorum is present.  That isn't practical at all because of how long it would take.  Rather, a sensible solution would be to require that members have bills submitted to them and then have at least 1 week (maybe 2) before having to vote on it. In fact, simply having the bills read into the record will do not change anything because the Members won't pay attention, but giving their staffs time to pour through the bills will do something.

  Second, because this would completely gum up the legislative works as written, this strikes me as the kind of thing conceived by the Cato Institute or some other organization devoted to the idea that the best thing we can do is stop government from passing any laws.

  Third, when I looked at the list I recognize only one name, and it's one that makes me want to oppose this:  Andrew Sullivan.

  Fourth, it could have a potentially chilling effect on the ability of the minority to offer Amendments to bills, because it would provide further incentives to the Majority to refuse to consider any changes.

  In conclusion, I have a feeling this bill was designed by people who aren't interested in good government, but rather in no goverment. If I'm wrong and it was designed with good intentions, then I submit that those who wrote it need to think of a better way to accomplish their objective.

  by dcg2 on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:17:29 AM PDT

•  Hmmm...

  I am not at all certain that you would get legislators to wade through the sometimes arcane and confusing language contained in most bills, but I really like the idea of adding the capacity for public comment on pending legislation.  

  It would give a small measure of balance to the other sources of input that a representative receives from staff, committee summaries, chamber leadership, and lobbyists.  It would also prevent a lot of the last-minute amendments which are nothing but pure pork from being snuck through passage.

  by Wayward Wind on Wed May 25, 2005 at 05:22:19 AM PDT

•  One problem is

  that no matter what is in the bill when they vote on it, the reconcilliation committees STILL have power to slip in crap when the reconcile house and senate versions. Still a good idea to get into the public conciousness though.
  

  by white blitz on Wed May 25, 2005 at 06:12:31 AM PDT

•  Do You Mean

  Congress would have to take time away from Terry Schiavo cases in order to do their homework on 'ominous bills'? I think it's a great idea.

  Posted & Linked this site. (Want to be bipartisan for a change.)

  by The Messenger on Wed May 25, 2005 at 07:45:23 AM PDT