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 group of Members of Congress sent a letter to House and Senate leadership outlining specific transparency recommendations for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, aka the Super Committee.  The letter echoes Sunlight’s proposals for Super Committee transparency, calling for live broadcast of committee meetings; posting of the Super Committee’s final recommendations for 72 hours prior to a final committee vote; weekly posting of campaign contributions received by committee members; and weekly posting of meetings between committee members and special interests.

If these common sense proposals are enacted, they will help to begin to rebuild the public’s trust in the budget process. On the other hand, shrouding the work of the Super Committee behind a veil of secrecy will delegitimize its work, harkening back to the days when decisions were made in smoke filled rooms where money and power changed hands without pubic scrutiny.

None of the four proposals is controversial.  Ensuring the meetings and hearings of the Super Committee are public and online should be so obvious as to be a given. Given the importance of the Super Committee’s work, its hearings should not be held to a lesser standard than any other congressional committee—all of which assume hearings will be public unless national security would be at risk. Arguments that committee members won’t be able to deliberate if the meetings are public are, in a word, silly.  Public hearings will in no way thwart members from speaking and negotiating privately with one another. Making hearings public will provide an important window into the committee’s goals, its process and its progress.

The remainder of the recommendations similarly fall into a “been there, done that” category so should not be objectionable. Speaker Boehner has already endorsed a 72-hour rule for legislation. Seventy-two hours of public scrutiny and debate should likewise be required before a vote on the Super Committee’s recommendations.  Under current law, campaign contributions are public, and if they are given within 20 days of an election, they must be reported within 48 hours. Given the short life of the Super Committee, anything less frequent than the weekly reporting called for here risks nondisclosure of contributions until after the committee’s work is complete. Finally, as the letter points out, disclosure of meetings by lobbyists and other special interests has been required under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Given that the Super Committee lobbying frenzy has already begun, the public should be made aware of who is asking for what.

When they return from recess, House and Senate leaders should announce that these common sense transparency measures will be adopted to ensure accountability and integrity in the Super Committee process.

Over the last week, the push for an open "supercommittee" has grown into a national issue. The issue has become the subject of pronouncements from congressional leaders, numerous bills, analysis and advocacy from non-profits, and intense public debate. The issue has now crossed over from a sidebar issue, to being a central part of the "supercommittee" story.

We're now getting a sense of where opposition to an open "supercommittee" might come from.  While Sunlight is calling for 5 core transparency recommendations, among others, we've occasionally seen resistance to the idea of open meetings for the joint committee. We're calling for "live webcasts of all official meetings and hearings," and we still don't know whether the supercommittee will hold public meetings or not.

The concern is that public meetings will make it harder to make tough decisions, causing further political paralysis.  This criticism, however, fails to distinguish between two things: making official meetings of the committee public, and making all deliberations among members of the committee public.  The first should be a no-brainer.

Official meetings of important government committees are held in public in the US. That's been reliably true for decades, and it's how we expect our government to work.  For good reason, too -- representation can only work if voters have some sense of what their representatives are doing, so that their vote bears some relation to their representative's record.  There are some exceptions to this general rule; congressional committees meet in out of public view for well-defined, largely noncontroversial reasons that are spelled out in the rules of the House and Senate.  Conference committees are the biggest exception to this rule, often evading requirements to meet publicly, but their work is in reconciling already passed legislation that has passed both the House and Senate.

And this joint committee is doing far more than just reconciling already-passed legislation.  It's a replacement for Congress altogether, save final approval. The House and Senate may have bound themselves to this requirement, but that doesn't make it any less remarkable.  The prerogatives of the minority have been completely waived in both chambers.  For this bill, there is no motion to recommit in the House, and no filibuster in the Senate.  Perhaps most unusually, inaction has been made nearly impossible, as failing to act means incurring deep budget cuts that were designed to be politically unpalatable.  This committee was designed to have to work, and Congress has been shunted out of the way.  These procedural requirements add up to mean that the joint committee is functioning as a replacement for Congress, and needs to be more open than Congress in order to be considered legitimate.  Holding official meetings in public is only the most basic first step toward that accountability.

We've seen the misguided objection that open meetings would squelch deliberations, and make it impossible to work through politically difficult ideas.  This is wrong.  Nothing about holding public meetings would keep Senator Murray from talking with Senator Toomey in private about any topic they please.  Having official meetings be public just guarantees the limited window into official business that everyone has come to rightfully expect in a democracy.  While these meetings may be full of pre-prepared speeches and posturing, they're still a public exercise that is fully worth having.

To go beyond public meetings and affect deliberations and negotiations, as some commenters fear, would take far more than what Sunlight is proposing.  Ex parte rules do exist in other contexts (like the FCC), and in some legislatures.  But let's be clear: in order to force all negotiations among some Members of Congress to be public, we'd be imposing a speech restriction.  And restricting the speech of our representatives is an unwise idea, to say the least.

In place of trying to restrict the speech of Members of Congress, you can carve out certain kinds of interactions which need to be reported publicly.  And that's exactly what exists already through our Lobbyist Disclosure Act, that Sunlight (and Reps. Quigley and Renacci) are calling to have expanded for the supercommittee.  If only 12 Members are going to be given the power to decide our alternative to the unpopular trigger, we should know when they're meeting with registered lobbyists or other powerful interests, and who is donating to their campaigns.

But even more basic than lobbying disclosure is the idea that the official work of our government should be done in full public view.  The perceived legitimacy of the "super committee" depends on it.  American dialog and deliberation are not so weak that they can't survive alongside public meetings.

Sunlight is ramping up our effort to get the new "Super Congress" committee to be as transparent as they are powerful.

We have honed yesterday's blog post into five requirements, and today we're sending a letter (see below) to congressional leaders demanding a transparent process.  We're inviting other organizations and individuals to support the effort, and so far CREW and Openthegovernment.org have signed on.  Please visit our campaign page, and sign up to show your support.

Open government doesn't happen automatically.  If the debt ceiling negotiations thus far haven't lived up to your expectations, then it's time to demand a better process.  And if you've got other ideas for how the process should be more open, we'd love to hear, and link to them.  POGO has a great post with more ideas for the "Super Congress" here.

Congress is clearly listening, as we've already seen one bill introduced with similar requirements -- Senator Vitter introduced a real-time campaign finance transparency bill yesterday.  Please add your support and demand a transparent "Super Congress".

Our five asks follow, and then the letter we're sending congressional leaders today:

Five things that the Super Congress should post on its website:

• Live webcasts of all official meetings and hearings
• The Committee's report should be posted for 72 hours before a final committee vote
• Disclosure of every meeting held with lobbyists and other powerful interests
• Disclosure of campaign contributions as they are received (on campaign sites, not the committee site)
• Financial disclosures of Committee members and staffers

Sunlight Letter to Leadership on Super Committee 2011-08-03

As Byron York just pointed out, the debt limit bill is being urgently rushed through Congress, and Members of Congress only have a few hours to read the bill.  (It was apparently posted online at about 1:45 AM.)

It didn't have to be this way.  As leaders worked against a looming deadline, they should have protected Members' and the public's ability to analyze legislation before floor consideration.  President Obama and Speaker Boehner both clearly agree with this sentiment; Boehner repeatedly promised 72 hours for all legislation, and Obama promised 5 days online before signing all legislation.  Clearly neither one is going to happen.

Certainly, nobody would suggest that the country default on its debt in order to post a bill online for 3 days.  But the exceptions to the 72 hour rule are reserved for emergency situations only.  We're in an emergency now, but it's one of our leaders' own making.  Rank and file Members of Congress are, along with their constituents, left with only a few hours to examine legislation of vital public import, even as party leaders have specifically promised to keep this from happening.  If, in the end, closed negotiations won out over public scrutiny, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at party leaders' rhetoric about openness.

Yesterday it was reported that a former Member of Congress, Ernest Istook, was seen on the House floor asking his colleagues to oppose the Boehner debt ceiling legislation. It seems that Istook, though clearly “lobbying” by anyone’s sense of the word, did not violate a House Rule that prohibits former members who are lobbyists from access to the floor.

The reason Istook can use his clout, his friendships with current House members, and the resources of the Heritage Foundation—where he is currently employed—to sidle up to lawmakers and ask for their support, is because he is not a registered lobbyist. A current gaping loophole in the law provides that anyone who spends less than 20 percent of his time lobbying does not need to register and report his activities. In the case if former members, the loophole also allows them to continue to access their colleagues on the floor of the House, the House gym and other exclusive venues limited to current and former lawmakers.

On a day when average citizens couldn’t reach their members of Congress because phone lines were overwhelmed and web sites crashed, it is particularly galling that former members, the ultimate Washington insiders, have such direct and immediate access.

Sunlight supports legislation, HR 2339, the Lobbying Disclosure Enhancement Act, that would end stealth lobbying by closing the 20 percent loophole. In addition, the bill would require that all lobbyists report the names of the individual members with whom they are meeting so that we know who our elected officials are talking to, and about what.

Will the American people be able to watch online as members of Congress discuss how much money to spend on the House of Representatives next year? Probably not, as this Thursday's hearing will take place in a room without cameras, even through the main committee room is wired to the internet and apparently available.*

The in-person-only nature of the hearing conflicts with the newly adopted House Rules, which require “to the maximum extent practicable, each committee shall --”

provide audio and video coverage of each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the proceedings.

Last year, Speaker Boehner moved to ensure that the House Rules Committee could broadcasting video of its proceedings in its main hearing room. At the time, he said, “given the important business conducted there, we feel strongly that the American people should have the ability to watch the Committee in action.” The same argument can be made here.

In light of the serious and important efforts being undertaken by the House leadership to move Congress into the electronic age, the Appropriations Committee should hold its hearings as possible in the main room whenever possible, starting with this one, until cameras are installed in its subcommittee rooms.

~ Phone calls requesting comment were not immediately returned, but I do hope to have an update when we hear back.

Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor today sent a letter to the Clerk of the House calling for better access to the House's electronic data:

...At the start of the 112th Congress, the House adopted a Rules Package that identified electronic documents as a priority for the institution. Towards that end, we are asking all House stakeholders to work together on publicly releasing the House’s legislative data in machine-readable formats. The Rules of the House, adopted on the opening day of this Congress, directed the Committee on House Administration to establish and maintain electronic data standards for the House and its committees. We have asked that this standard be developed in conjunction with your office for the purpose of transitioning the House to more open data formats, such as XML. We believe that this legislative data, using standardized machine-readable formats, should be publicly available on House websites. The Clerk’s office should work to ensure the consistent public availability and utility of the House’s legislative data.

This an extremely important move. A joint letter from the Speaker and Majority Leader is a real commitment to data release, and means that the House is going to be adjusting how it shares legislative information online.

This has been a priority for the Sunlight Foundation since we were founded, from the 2007 Open House Project chapter on data access from Josh Tauberer, to the 2008 legislative appropriations language that was crafted to this end, and to OpenCongress.org's persistent advocacy on this topic.

Access to legislative data brings citizens closer to their representatives. When developers and programmers have better access to the data of Congress, they can better build the databases and tools that let the rest of us connect with the legislature.

This is a fantastic move from Speaker Boehner, and recognizes the transparency innovation happening outside Congress.

We're excited to see what this commitment will yield, and to work with the House and the community of legislative data users to help create the most effective access possible to House legislative data.

On Friday, Rep. Peters introduced a new bill, (H. Res. 230), to carry the Read the Bill mantle.

The bill would require all legislation that hasn't been reported out of committee to be posted online for at least 72 hours.

The measure, also cosponsored by Reps Quigley and Polis, comes on the heels of the new House Rules for the 112th Congress, which require three calendar days for legislation. This rules change (from this January) was a significant improvement over what came before, even if there are many avenues for evading a full, 72 hour public airing of legislation.

The biggest loophole in the existing rules, it turns out, is that three calendar days can mean as little as 24 hours and change, as long as the bill is online during part of three different working days. Several bills this Congress have been passed without 72 hours online, including the NPR defunding vote, and one of the Continuing Resolution bills from House Republicans.

These votes were particularly surprising, since Speaker Boehner was a big proponent of the 72 hour standard for all House bills, as we've pointed out before.

Rep. Peters' bill would raise the standard for House bills from 3 days to 72 hours, and give lawmakers and the public the minimum they need to see what is in bills that are being considered.

House leaders have clearly recognized that the public expects bills to be online before votes, and have improved the way bills are shared online, but we shouldn't rely on the Speakers' prerogatives in order to guarantee a reasonable amount of time for public consideration of bills in the people's House.

H. Res 230 is short enough to read in a minute or two. The full text is below:

HRES 230 IH 112th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 230 Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that the House may not consider any reported bill until at least 72 hours after it is reported. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 15, 2011 Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. QUIGLEY, and Mr. POLIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules RESOLUTION Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that the House may not consider any reported bill until at least 72 hours after it is reported. Resolved, That clause 11 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows: `11. It shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution that has not been reported by a committee until such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner for 72 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) in which such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.'.