Transparency Means We Get to Read the Final Bill BEFORE the Vote; Right?

Still Waiting on Those Promises of Transparency

One of the many broken promises made by Obama during the '08 campaign was that his administration would be the most transparent in history. That sentiment became hugely popular among voters and was immediately echoed by other congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Pelosi, who vowed to end the "culture of corruption."  Why then, ten months into the Obama administration are the American people still waiting for the transparency they were promised? Are voters even aware that any attempts to introduce transparency in legislation since that change in power have been voted down by the very same Democrats that made those promises?

As the federal deficit skyrockets into unchartered nethersperes, Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with congress as legislation is routinely altered through partisan committee negotiations, back-room deals, and closed-door meetings. Introducing last-minute amendments and tacking on costly "pork" projects to bills as they migrate through numerous committees in the voting process without disclosing those alterations publicly is not what voters had in mind when they heard the word transparent. Not even close. The fact that congress does not seem to understand this concept is in part why their approval rating has reached record low numbers. People want to have a look at the menu and the prices themselves before placing their order. Too many people are struggling to live within dwindling means, and they are tired of picking up the huge tabs generated by the gaggle of swindlers that roam the halls of Congress.

Transparency Legislation: H.Res. 216, S.Amdt. 934, H.Res. 554, H.Res. 689

To  better understand how the new administration has fared on its promise of an open and transparent legislative process, let's take a look at some of the legislation proposed over the last ten months and see just who it is that continues to stand in the way of transparency:  

On March 5th, H. Res. 216, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), along with 8 cosponsors, would have required that congress have "time to read legislation before voting." This amendment was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on March 5th and remains there to this day.

On April 2nd, S. Amdt. 934 to S. Con. Res. 13, proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), would have required five days for the public to review legislation before being considered for final passage by the Senate. (There were no co-sponsors to this amendment.) A point of order was immediately raised as to the germaneness of the amendment and was then voted down 52-46. All 52 Senators voting against this legislation were Democrats. Every Republican senator, including Snowe, voted in favor of this transparency amendment, as did five Democrats. 

On June 17th, H.Res. 554, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), was introduced that would require legislation and conference reports to be posted online for 72 hours before consideration for final passage by the House. The number of cosponsors to this legislation continues to grow and seems to be the best hope for a mild bipartisan effort toward transparency. To date there are 208 cosponsors, yet still this amendment has not come to the House floor for a vote. On Sept. 23rd, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) filed a motion to discharge petition to help move the bill out of the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), where it now sits, and onto the floor of the House for a vote. A motion to discharge petition can be used to release a bill such as H.Res. 554 through the committee system if 218 Members will sign the petition. (Now only 10 Members shy.)

Regarding H. Res. 554, Rep. Baird stated, "This isn't about politics. Both parties are guilty. Now is the time to fix this once and for all, and put rules in place so that Congress is better able to serve the American people. People should have a chance to read what is in legislation before it becomes law, not after." Questioning why Congress overwhelmingly agreed to a 72-hour review period for an agriculture appropriations bill but would not agree to the same guidelines for every House bill, Rep. Walden made the comment, "If the 72-hour rule is good enough for the agriculture appropriations bill, then what stops my colleagues from signing the petition to give the public time to review all bills, like major healthcare reform? This is about one thing: the public's right to know. It's time to change how Washington works." 

On July 29th, H.R. 689, sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), along with 36 co-sponsors, was introduced requiring legislation be made available for a 72-hour period before being brought to a vote in the House.  According to Rep. Posey's website, "This not only applies to the underlying bill to be considered but also to any manager's amendment or other amendment that makes significant changes to the bill."  H. Res. 689 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on July 29th, and remains there to this day. 

Finally, on October 15th, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), along with 99 cosponsors, introduced legislation to ban the adding of "phantom amendments" to legislation once a bill has been passed by committee. The bill, H. Res. 835, would require that legislation be posted online within 24 hours after a committee vote. Regarding this important move toward transparency in legislation, Rep. Jenkins said, "This is only my first year in Washington, but if this is business as usual, then it's time for business to change. Committees should post legislation online within 24-hours to give all members of Congress as well as the American people time to read and understand the legislation. The status quo of secrecy and back-door deals has worn out its welcome."  H. Res. 835 was referred to the House Committee on Rules, chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), where it remains at this time.

And there are others. Based on the number of bills being introduced, clearly some in Washington are beginning to support the right of Americans to be actively involved in the crafting of legislation that they will be expected to write the checks for and ultimately live under. Would it also be fair to suggest that others in Congress choosing not to vote in favor of these transparency bills either consider their constituents not intelligent enough to read and comprehend the legislation, or is it that they don't want the people to see what they are up to? Transparent means to be able to see through something, and the American people are clearly starting to see through the games that these politicians are playing. Perhaps we have transparency after all — just not the kind they promised.