Thread: 72 Hours to review every bill

http://www.nickschweitzer.net/2009/1...ButHisOwn.aspx


Sensenbrenner Demands 72 Hours to Review Every Bill But His Own

In Jim Sensenbrenner's latest weekly column, my congressman is asking why we can't have 72 hours to review bills before they get voted on:

Legislation is sometimes complicated, dense and lengthy. It’s often dry to read, and can be filled with a lot of jargon. Regardless, I strongly believe that Members and citizens should have the opportunity to read the final version of non-emergency legislation before it is voted on. That is why I am co-sponsoring H.Res 554, the 72 Hour Rule bill, and have signed a discharge petition to move this bill directly to the floor, as it’s being held up by House leadership.

The legislation has two key points:

1) Requires that all bills and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and the general public for 72 hours online before it can be brought to the House floor for a vote.

2) Repeals the "last six days" provision in current House Rules, which provides that the opportunity to read conference reports is automatically waived in the last six days of a congressional session.

It all sounds so perfectly reasonable... and it is. In fact, I would argue that 72 hours is not enough. But here's the rub. Sensenbrenner is lying about his desire to have 72 hours before voting on a bill, because when Republicans were in power, he personally pushed through a lot of major legislation, which impacted the lives of Americans substantially with less than 72 hours to review a bill. I'll cite two major examples of Sensenbrenner's hypocrisy.

Example 1: USA Patriot Act

This piece of legislation has been the subject of controversy from day one... so much so that trying to include all sides of the argument into this post would really distract from my main point. However, the mere fact that it has been mired in controversy speaks to the need for 72 hours worth of review at least. While Sensenbrenner tries to account for this by exempting "emergency legislation", he never defines what makes legislation "emergency". In the case of the USA Patriot Act, since it's goal was to protect us from a terrorist attack, wouldn't it behoove us to examine the bill for at least 72 hours to ensure that it would actually protect us, before passing it? You can read it's short legislative history at GovTrack, but the important detail is the timeline... Introduced Oct 23, 2001, Passed House Oct 24, 2001, Passed Senate Oct 25, 2001, Signed by President Oct 26, 2001.

It should be noted that the Patriot Act was really full of a wish list of items that the Justice Department had been wanting since the Clinton Administration, but never had the ability to get passed. When 9/11 struck, so did the opportunity to ram through this legislation. Since it's passage, at least one major provision has been struck down as being unconstitutional. Many of it's other provisions have been used to go after drug dealers and gamblers rather than terrorists. In fact, the Justice Department had the power it needed to get warrants against terrorists prior to the Patriot Act... they just didn't realize it. Imagine what 72 hours worth of debate could have highlighted.

Example 2: Real ID

As I have blogged about numerous times in the past, Real ID has been one of Sensenbrenner's pet projects. It is also a boondoggle of a bill which tramples privacy, violates state's rights by stripping away powers that constitutionally belong to the states, and pushes onto them an unfunded mandate amounting to billions of dollars. Once again, a deep discussion of Real ID itself is beyond the scope of this post, but once again, the fact that it is mired in so much controversy would make one believe that 72 hours to review this bill would be beneficial. Congressman Sensenbrenner thought otherwise. I think everyone can agree Real ID is clearly not emergency legislation.

The legislative history to Real ID is actually quite complex, but you can read the original bill at GovTrack. You will notice that the original bill authored by Congressman Sensenbrenner passed in the House but was never taken up for a vote in the Senate. One of the concerns in the Senate was the aforementioned unfunded mandate. However, that did not stop Jim. Instead, he got it attached as a rider to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief bill. What is interesting here is that Real ID does not appear in the bill as passed by the House, nor does it appear in the text of the bill as it was originally passed by the Senate. That's because it wasn't added until the Conference Committee met after its passage to iron out the differences in the bill. Apparently to Congress, "ironing out the differences" means adding entire unrelated pieces of legislation which are unrelated to the original bill. The conference committee bill is here, and was completed on May 3rd, 2005. It was passed by Congress just two days later. Once again, 72 hours was never allowed to discuss a significant addition to a bill.

This brings up an important point with one of Sensenbrenner's caveats in his newly proposed bill. He wants to exempt "emergency bills" from the 72 hour requirement. And low and behold, Real ID was attached as a rider to a bill with the word "Emergency" right in. So perhaps he feels vindicated, and that he's not a hypocrite. But allow me to ask you this. What would Sensenbrenner now say if the current Health Care Reform Bill failed to pass Congress, but then was attached as a rider to an "emergency" Afghanistan spending bill without any time for debate?

Summary

So if I agree that 72 hours to review a bill is vital, why am I going after Sensenbrenner so much? Isn't it counter productive? The first reason is that I believe that providing any exemption to a 72 hour review period is not a good idea, and Sensenbrenner's own behavior is a prime example as to why. Secondly, I think Sensenbrenner is using the idea of a 72 hour review for purely partisan purposes, and doesn't actually believe in it. He knows this bill will likely not pass, and that he will never be bound by its terms, and so he is using it's non-passage as an attack against the Democratic leadership, when he has done no better in the past.

All legislators, Republicans and Democrats, need to be held accountable for passing poor legislation without review. Not only do we need 72 hours for review before legislation is passed, we also need partisan hacks like James Sensenbrenner to get voted out of office so that power can be restored from the political elite (like Sensenbrenner) and returned to those who have a right to it... the individual citizens of this great nation.


Fox news has the story too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-online-votes/


I think we deserve at least 72 hours to review what is in these bills before they get voted upon.