Sunlight has long called for all bills to be posted online for 3 days before they're considered on the floor. So our disappointment with recent failures to post bills online for 3 days should be no surprise.

Today Sunlight and a number of other groups are sending a letter (below) to Speaker Boehner, calling on him to renew his commitment to posting all bills online for 3 days before their consideration.

The groups signing the letter are:

• Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest
• Demand Progress
• Government Accountability Project
• iSolon.org
• National Taxpayers Union
• Participatory Politics Foundation
• The Sunlight Foundation
• United Republic

Orgs Call on Speaker Boehner to Uphold "Read the Bill" 3 Day Pledge

Throughout the last year, we've repeatedly pointed out that Speaker Boehner repeatedly pledged to put all bills online for 72 hours before they're voted on, reflecting Sunlight's call and the ReadtheBill.org campaign.

Boehner's pledge was unambiguous and repeated often -- all non emergency bills for 72 hours.  Unfortuantely, this has become a pledge that has been broken often, most recently last week with the bills rushed through the House.

For easier reference, here are the commitments on video, edited into one shorter clip.

These commitments matter. Remember when Republicans derided Pelosi for the healthcare bill, and claimed that bills were being "rammed down" their throats? Similarly, remember when (mostly) Democrats were outraged that the PATRIOT Act wasn't read before it was passed?

When we're pushing for important transparency reforms, like having all bills online for 72 hours before floor consideration, the minority party is often a natural ally. Each time the majority changes hands, there's usually a rush to reform processes, and promises to run a more accountable ship. Of course, many of these promises are kept, and we make progress.

But the toughest promises to keep are often the most important, and this Congress has a very poor track record on legislative secrecy. When the most important bills are written by a tiny number of negotiators, and then foisted on the rest of Congress at the eleventh hour, we can expect dismal approval ratings and mistrust to rule the day.

While such discord in Congress is more likely under divided government like we've got now, perhaps Boehner (and Obama) should revisit the visions they set for their current roles before they began -- Obama on Change.gov, and Boehner in the Pledge to America.

They should remember that when they run up to the last possible second to negotiate deals between party leaders, it's not a zero sum competition. It's not whether Republicans or Democrats gain ground, or are seen as taking the more reasonable position. When the 72 hour expectation is flaunted, our trust in government suffers, as does our sense of merit in policymaking, and our sense of self governance.

Leaders from both parties have largely turned their backs on transparency in policymaking. Whether it's the perceived necessity of SuperPACS, or the acceptance of the ridiculous secrecy of the SuperCommittee, neither party has found solid ground to discuss transparent process.

Let's hope they revisit their past rhetoric, because without solid footing, we'll just keep sliding downhill.

Having legislation that is meaningfully public isn't a luxury, it's a requirement. A closed Congress is an abused process. Our leaders should remind themselves of the times they've agreed with that sentiment.

A bipartisan assembly of groups representing a variety of interests—from a conservative government watchdog to a supporter of women’s rights to social security advocates—today sent a letter to the twelve members of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction asking them to post their recommendations for trimming at least $1.2 trillion from the federal budget online for 72 hours prior to a committee vote.

The breadth of groups that joined the letter demonstrates that Super Committee transparency is an issue that matters to every American. Anyone with an interest in any federal program should have the opportunity to read the bill and determine its impact on the programs they care about. Likewise, the members of Congress who will be called on to vote on the Super Committee’s recommendations without amendment should have more than hours or minutes to determine how to cast their vote. They should, too, have a chance to weigh in with Super Committee members before the bill is finalized, if their constituents feel strongly that the bill should be changed.

Yes, time is running out. But that is no excuse for the Super Committee to claim they can’t allow the public to read the bill. They have known since August that the public and members of Congress have been calling for the committee’s recommendations to be made public before a committee vote. They can’t be surprised if there is outrage should they decide to ram a bill through at the 11th hour. Members of Congress are procrastinators. They will wait until a deadline to come to any conclusion. It won’t matter if the deadline is 72-hours earlier than they had hoped.

We strongly urge the Super Committee to heed the call of those urging them to complete their work and post the bill online 72 hours before they vote. In what has been an entirely secretive and undemocratic process so far, it is the least that can be done to attempt to restore the public’s faith in the deficit cutting process.

72 Hour Sign on Super Committee Letter

The Super Committee has 10 days to reach a deal to reduce the debt by at least $1.2 trillion. They should do it in 7. Here’s why. From the beginning, negotiations and lobbying on the committee’s efforts to reshape the federal budget have been handled in secret. If the Super Committee does come to an agreement, the public must have the option to see for themselves which programs will be cut, which will be spared, and why. The 523 members of Congress who are not on the super powerful, super secret committee should likewise have time to digest and weigh in on proposed changes before it is too late for the bill to be modified. In an affront to our democratic traditions, no member of Congress will be able to amend the bill when it goes to the floor of the House or the Senate. The only chance an elected official will have to voice the concerns of his or her constituents is if he or she is given the opportunity to read the bill before the Super Committee votes.

We can hear the excuses already: Super Committee members need every last minute to hammer out a deal; It’s not fair to shave 3 days off of the time they need to negotiate; The deal is too important to risk it failing for lack of time. We’re not buying it. In August, well before the Super Committee began hiding behind closed doors to attempt to negotiate a solution, Sunlight and many others publicly called for the committee’s recommendation to be made public before a committee vote. Legislation has also been offered to mandate online disclosure of the bill before a vote. Members can’t now feign shock that people are demanding to read the bill. Nor can they complain that they need those extra three days. We have seen time and time again that members of Congress are procrastinators. They will wait until a deadline to come to any conclusion. It won’t matter if the deadline is 72-hours earlier than they hoped. If there is any chance they will come to an agreement (and Super Committee co-chair Jeb Hensarling says he hasn’t “given up hope”) and if they believe transparency is at all important, they will find a way to arrive at an agreement in time for the details to be made public, online, before a final committee vote.

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle regularly voice concern about one party or the other “ramming through” legislation at the 11th hour. Now is the time for the bipartisan super committee to recognize that before they make decisions that will impact every American—whether by restructuring social services, modifying the tax code, or altering the defense budget—we have the right to read the bill.

Today’s New York Times reports that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the super secrecy of the Super Committee. It’s refreshing to know we are not alone in our concern that the Super Committee’s work is taking place entirely behind closed doors, but it is frustrating that those with the power to address the secret nature of the proceedings have failed to do so. Congress can legislate transparency. If Members of Congress want a “window” into the Super Committee’s work, as the Times' headline suggests, they must demand it by enacting a bill that would ensure that the recommendations of the Deficit Committee are made public for at least 72 hours before a committee vote.

As of yet, Members of Congress have shown little appetite for mandating Super Committee transparency. HR 2860, the Deficit Committee Transparency Act, would, among other things, require final committee recommendations to be made publicly available, online, for at least 72 hours before a committee vote. Unfortunately, the bill has only five cosponsors in the House and has not been introduced in the Senate. Other Super Committee transparency bills, generally requiring less in terms of transparency than HR 2860, have likewise garnered only token support.

It is not too late for Members who feel shut out of the process to legislate a fix. Quick passage of the Deficit Committee Transparency Act would ensure that the final Super Committee agreement is not shoved down the throats of Members of Congress and the public. Importantly, it would also require disclosure of campaign contributions to and special interest lobbying meetings with Super Committee members. A stand-alone 72-hour bill, while still leaving a lot of information in the dark, would at least ensure the end result of the Committee's secretive work would have a public airing before a final up or down vote.

In the House, rules adopted earlier this Congress require legislation to be made available for three calendar days prior to a vote. Although the rule has been waived or ignored, its passage indicates that Members should have no objection to a 72-hour Super Committee rule. Because Members of Congress have no right to amend the Super Committee’s recommendations to make at least $1.2 trillion in cuts to the federal budget, they should demand the opportunity to weigh in on the cuts while the bill can still be modified.

It was a bill negotiated in secret that brought us the super secret Super Committee in the first place. It’s not too late. Members who are wringing their hands and bemoaning the secrecy of the Committee’s negotiations can still demand transparency.

Two weeks ago the House of Representatives violated a pledge made by Speaker John Boehner to provide a 72 hour window for all legislation to be viewed by the public before it is brought to the floor for debate by voting on a bill to defund National Public Radio. Today, the House majority is again violating that pledge by voting on the Government Shutdown Prevention Act.

The Government Shutdown Prevention Act, a bill that deems the budget cutting bill passed by the House earlier this year to have passed Congress without the Senate's assent, was introduced on March 30 at 1:13 pm. At the present moment, this bill has not been available for even 48 hours.

The House majority sent the bill to be approved for floor debate by the House Rules Committee under emergency rules. The NPR defunding bill was also considered by the House Rules Committee in an emergency session.

In a post detailing the 72 hour pledge breaking promise on the NPR vote I noted how the Republican majority circumvented their pledge by following a "Read the Bill" rule that they instituted at the opening of this Congress:

Earlier this year the House Republicans changed the House Rules to implement a Read the Bill rule that stating that bills must be available on three calendar days prior to consideration. Sunlight was very pleased to see the new House Rules incorporate language that strengthens the public's ability to see legislation online before votes. We've also recognized that this rule might be artfully evaded through a variety of means, one of which is the "calendar day" definition. ... This "calendar day" issue was previously pointed out by Sunlight's Lisa Rosenberg, "the “third calendar day” yardstick for determining whether a bill is ripe for consideration could result in a bill being available for less than 72 hours. Sunlight has advocated using a “72 hour” time frame instead of three calendar days to prevent possible gamesmanship." There still remain many other potential ways in which the current Rule and previous pledges could be subverted. Sunlight Policy Director John Wonderlich pointed these out in a post earlier this year.

This rule is clearly meant to fudge the previous promise by Speaker Boehner to provide 72 hours of public, online exposure for each bill before it is debated. In case you are wondering if Boehner made a 3 day, as opposed to a 72 hours, pledge, please watch below:

There's more video here.

It's worrying that the majority would repeatedly evade a pledge that they made to the American people to make the House a more transparent body. It is especially worrying that the majority would do this on two votes that are clearly not emergencies.

How was the defunding of National Public Radio an emergency requiring the circumvention of normal Rules Committee procedures and the 72 hour pledge? The current Continuing Resolution to fund the government expires on April 8. Why can't the majority wait until Monday to vote on this bill?

The 72 hour rule is needed to give the public not only a chance to read the bills, but a chance to voice their opinion. This is especially important when bills are crafted and pushed forwards for political purposes. The public needs to be involved, but the majority is blocking that involvement for nothing other than the pursuit of quick political wins and message control. This is very disturbing.

Here is the original bill copy with time stamp in the lower left hand corner: XML_362-POST_xml

In the post below I noted that it's a bit surprising that the Read the Bill pledge was subverted by the majority not providing 72 hours of online, public review of the NPR defunding bill because of Speaker John Boehner's many public pledges that specify that 72 hour time frame.

Here's a selection of the many, many times that Speaker Boehner pledged 72 hours of public review for all bills.

Why not wait the extra 20 hours?

Yesterday the House Republicans voted on a bill to defund National Public Radio without providing 72 hours for the public to review the bill. This violates a pledge that Speaker John Boehner made repeatedly that he would require every bill to be made available for at least 72 hours online and in public.

I explained this in a post yesterday:

Earlier this year the House Republicans changed the House Rules to implement a Read the Bill rule that stating that bills must be available on three calendar days prior to consideration. Sunlight was very pleased to see the new House Rules incorporate language that strengthens the public's ability to see legislation online before votes. We've also recognized that this rule might be artfully evaded through a variety of means, one of which is the "calendar day" definition.

In the case of today's vote, the bill technically meets the House Rules as passed in January, but could, if voted on prior to a 72 hour period expiring (approximately 8 AM on Friday), violate the numerous pledges made by Speaker Boehner and other Republican leaders to provide a public, 72 hour window for all legislation.

The bill was voted on yesterday afternoon and, thus, violated Boehner's pledge. To be more accurate, the pledge was violated even before the vote as the 72 hours of public review should end at the beginning of debate, which, on the NPR defunding bill, began yesterday morning.

Sunlight has previously stated our concerns about ways that the majority could circumvent this pledge and the rule, which does not mirror the pledge, implemented earlier this year. It is a bit surprising that the pledge was initially broken in this unnecessary manner, especially after Boehner being so emphatic and specific about the 72 hour time frame.