H. Res. 688
Welcome to WhatDoYaThink, our new column where we hope to get your opinions on the issues that matter to you, our readers, our supporters, the voters!
I recently found out about a new resolution that is being considered in the House of Representatives called H. Res. 688. Basically, with this piece of legislation our representatives would require themselves to make any legislation they're considering available on-line for 72 hours before they're allowed to vote it through or vote it down. Ideally, this would give us, the voters, the opportunity to weigh in on the matter before Congress decides on the legislation they are considering.
At first glance, it looks like Rep. Brian Baird
may be giving us some of what we want: more transparency and more accountability. However, I'd like to see what you think about the matter.
Some questions to consider: Is it enough? Will it help? If you are dissatified with the representation you are getting from your Congressperson, will supporting this bill effect your opinion of him or her? Tell us what you think!
If you choose to contact your representatives about this legislation, or any other piece of legislation that is being consider or should be considered, I highly recommend this site. It's also a good place to go to stay informed about what your representatives are doing. Check it out!
...and don't forget to tell us what you think!
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.voidnow.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/139
Comments
Sounds like a great idea, especially for media and bloggers. Media and bloggers are afterall, the only oversight to be found for government, these days. Being a great idea, I have to wonder if it will pass, especially if Congress persons identities on earmark proposals are to be included. That has to have many Congress persons in cold sweats in their beds as they contemplate their tomorrows.
Posted by: David R. Remer | March 31, 2006 4:10 AM
Stephanie,
Thanks for this information. Your column will be welcome reading.
I wonder though, as good as this sounds, will H Res 688 include any exceptions to the rule by topic or dollar amount. I hope not.
Posted by: steve smith | March 31, 2006 8:15 AM
Thank you, gentlemen, and I must say that's what concerns me as well. This sounds like one of those "too good to be true" things. Is it a PR stunt that has absolutely no chance of passing? In which case, we the voters have all the more reason to be upset, since this seems like a measure that truly serves our needs. Or is it a matter of being able to pass it, only to find that there are too many "useful" loops to make it truly effective?
Posted by: Stephanie Crist | March 31, 2006 11:00 AM
Stephanie,
Thanks for the info.
I think anything (such as HR 688) that increases transparency is good.
Also, voters still need to understand their failure to do the one simple thing they were supposed be doing all along, results in ever growing corruption in government.
HR688 is a good thing.
But, voters and politicians need to do much more.
The voters' part is easy, but getting voters to do that easy thing is difficult.
HR 688 is good. When we design such procedures and systems, we must always look for simplifications (often cleverly over-complicated) to increase transparency, and always take into account the human factor.
Posted by: d.a.n | March 31, 2006 11:15 AM
I agree, Dan. HR688 is good, but it's not enough!
Posted by: Stephanie Crist | March 31, 2006 12:29 PM
I can't say I'm crazy about this piece of legislation. I don't think it's bad, I just don't know that it's effective. The Library of Congress website already posts bills as soon as they're proposed, and govtrack.us provides daily updates on all bills in Congress. It's rare that any of these bills is actually voted on less than a week after introduction, much less three days.
I'm all for transparency, but I'm having trouble seeing the effectiveness of this.
Posted by: Joey | March 31, 2006 2:13 PM
I see your point, Joey. I'm not sure how many people know about govtrack.us. I know I didn't. However, if it's a rule it would (presumably) have to be followed, and if there is no rule, they could still slip in whatever they want without voter imput.
Perhaps it's not going to be effective...that's why I asked!
;-)
Posted by: Stephanie Crist | April 1, 2006 3:50 PM
Joey said: "It's rare that any of these bills is actually voted on less than a week after introduction, much less three days."
Yes, but when it does happen, it is usually to get one over before the public can become aware of it and halt it. Therein lies the need for the bill.
Posted by: David R. Remer | April 4, 2006 11:14 PM
Like the Pennsylvania congress, that during the middle of the night, gave themselves a pay raise.
Posted by: d.a.n | April 5, 2006 2:30 PM
We need a precise check list of what we, the voters, can do in a 72 hour period to stop or delay passage of a piece of legislation. While the description of 688 is encouraging, it may be nothing more than throwing us a bone that appears transparent but is actually translucent.
Posted by: steve smith | April 5, 2006 2:52 PM
While I agree it may be a bone for us poor, little voters; I don't think it has to be that way. Basically, voters need to use what tools we have, and as a whole we simply do NOT do that effectively or productively enough. Sure, if we DON'T choose to use this piece of legislation to our advantage, then it's all for naught. But that's on us. And, sure, there could be a LOT better pieces of legislation I'd like to see that would make things more transparent and would force our "representatives" into the position of being more accountable, but we already know they're not going to do that on their own.
BTW, thanks, Steve, for giving me the topic for my next post...
:-)
Posted by: Stephanie Crist | April 5, 2006 8:34 PM
The other concern I have is bills that are pushed through in the last week of session. I suppose the idea is that there would be no way to introduce anything new during this time, but I'm not sure it's best to do that.
I can definitely see your points though, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. I'm just not completely sold at this point....
Posted by: Joey | April 21, 2006 2:54 PM