It seems that Republicans introduced a bill that would require that all bills be posted to the internet at least 72 hours prior to a vote in Congress. Democrats voted against it. Republicans voted for it. Democrat reasoning: "They voted us into office because they trust that we'll do what's right. Therefore we don't need to post things so they can be reviewed by our constituents..." John Kerry... "Nobody reads the legislative language anyway..."
Remember when the self-proclaimed most powerful woman in the world, Nancy Pelosi promised the most “honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." But Pelosi must believe that being honest and open has nothing to do with reading a bill before it is voting.
Back in June, Congressional Republicans introduced H. Res 554. The bill's purpose is to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, giving the members and the public time to read the bill before it can be voted on. In the three months since it was introduced, the bill has languished on the speaker's desk as Mrs. Transparency refuses to allow a vote on the bill.
House Republican Leader John Boehner wrote this about the bill on his blog:
It’s just common sense: the American people should be given time to read major bills before they come to a vote in Congress.
In June, a bipartisan resolution was introduced by Reps. John Culberson (R-TX) and Brian Baird (D-WA) that would change House rules to require all major bills to be posted online publicly for at least 72 hours before they are brought to a vote on the House floor. I posted a similar proposal on a White House “transparency” website this summer - a site that allowed Americans to vote on the reforms they feel would make the biggest impact in terms of making government more accountable. My proposal got more votes than any other idea.
Today, Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR), Culberson and Baird filed a “discharge petition” in the House regarding the 72-hour review resolution. If this bipartisan discharge petition receives the signatures of any 218 House members, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer will be required to schedule the resolution for an up-or-down vote on the House floor.
On Wednesday, Culberson, Baird and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) filed a discharge petition, a process used to force a bill out of committee. If the petition is signed by at least 218 House members, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be required to schedule the resolution for an up-or-down vote on the House floor.
“It’s just common sense: the American people should be given time to read major bills before they come to a vote in Congress,” House Republican leader John Boehner said in a blog posting on Wednesday.
Boehner said he has signed the discharge petition and he is urging his fellow lawmakers from both parties to do the same. According to Boehner’s office, this is the first time a Democrat has signaled that he would sign a discharge petition since the Democrats took charge of the House.
Boehner noted that previous Congresses, including those led by Republicans, have failed to give the American public time to read major bills before they are voted on. But he said the situation has been particularly “acute” over the past nine months:
“A pork-laden ‘stimulus’ spending bill, a debt-laden budget, a job-killing national energy tax and other bills have been rammed through the House by Speaker Nancy Pelosi without even allowing the American people to know what’s in the bills,” Boehner said.
“The collective cost has been astronomical, both in terms of the debt piled on our children and grandchildren and the astonishing amount of special-interest giveaways tucked inside.”
So which Is it Speaker Pelosi? Open and Transparent or Hiding under a rock like a snake?
Folks please call your congressman and ask them to sign the disclosure petition, to force Pelosi to do what she promised, "honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history."
It's a common-sense measure that should be adopted. But what if the roles were reversed? I'd be willing to bet that it would be the Democrats introducing a 72-hour bill and the Republicans doing the blocking. Good ol' politics as usual. I have to question the motives of any politician who thinks it isn't necessary to give the American public an opportunity to read the bill. I would favor a requirement that all bills be read aloud in the chamber before they're voted on.
__________________
Politics, it seems to me, all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour
It's a common-sense measure that should be adopted. But what if the roles were reversed? I'd be willing to bet that it would be the Democrats introducing a 72-hour bill and the Republicans doing the blocking. Good ol' politics as usual. I have to question the motives of any politician who thinks it isn't necessary to give the American public an opportunity to read the bill. I would favor a requirement that all bills be read aloud in the chamber before they're voted on.
I agree with you 100% here gris. Well said.
As for posting the bill on the internet? I would think the vast majority of Americans couldn't make heads or tales of a 1000+ page pile of legal-ease, so giving folks 3 days to digest these HUGE and very complex documents will not be effective anyhow. This amounts to nothing more than another p-p contest, with no real effective outcome, whether the vote is up or down.
As gris says, congressmen should read the bill and understand it, then vote. Whether the public gets a look is beside the point and ultimately unnec. in a Republic as such.
I agree with you 100% here gris. Well said.
As for posting the bill on the internet? I would think the vast majority of Americans couldn't make heads or tales of a 1000+ page pile of legal-ease, so giving folks 3 days to digest these HUGE and very complex documents will not be effective anyhow. This amounts to nothing more than another p-p contest, with no real effective outcome, whether the vote is up or down.
As gris says, congressmen should read the bill and understand it, then vote. Whether the public gets a look is beside the point and ultimately unnec. in a Republic as such.
Unfortunately, you're probably right about the majority of Americans not having the intellect to read and understand some of the bills being voted on by congress. This last election proved your statement. Those to whom thinking for for themselves is a foreign concept, were duped into thinking that Bush and the republicans were the source of all evil, thus putting this atrocity into office.
I also have to agree with you about this being a Republic, not a Democracy. The mob doesn't rule in this country. While we should keep an eye on what our congress votes on, whether we see it before or after the vote should be irrelevant. Election time is when our representatives' votes should really be scrutinized. Unfortunately, too many voters are worried about what handouts their representative is going to secure for them, rather than what they are doing for the good of their state or country. You start discussing voting records with the average liberal and you get a deer in the headlights look. Discuss union rights, taxing the rich, free healthcare, additional welfare, or anything else the government shouldn't take part in and you start to get a reaction.
__________________
"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." G.K. Chesterton
Transparency. That is without a doubt the biggest lie that barry has pulled off so far. This is one of the least transparent administration of my life time. Today the DemoCRAPS shot down the confirmation of then czars. Bunch of commies have came to roost here.
Transparency? Not from Democrats...
