House Appropriators May Limit Public Availability of Pending Bills

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

House Appropriators May Limit Public Availability of Pending Bills

Posted by samzenpus on Friday June 1, 2012 @12:04AM from the no-bill-for-you dept.

Attila Dimedici writes "The House Appropriations Committee is considering a draft report that would forbid the Library of Congress to allow bulk downloads of bills pending before Congress. The Library of Congress currently has an online database called THOMAS (for Thomas Jefferson) that allows people to look up bills pending before Congress. The problem is that THOMAS is somewhat clunky and it is difficult to extract data from it. This draft report would forbid the Library of Congress from modernizing THOMAS until a task force reports back. I am pretty sure that the majority of people on Slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country."

37 of 194 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Obviously by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-06-01 00:06 · Score: 4, Funny

The Gingrich Revolution is too far to the left for the current House of Representatives.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
1. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-01 00:11 · Score: 2
  
  This is news? The current GOP pols are far to the right of that liberal Demagogue Nixon. The health care reform package that the current GOP is so outraged about would likely have been signed no further questions asked by Nixon as it's more conservative than what he was proposing at the time.
  What's more back then the GOP recognized that we do indeed need the federal government to do somethings as leaving things up to the states didn't work out so well during our trial run as a confederation.
2. Re:Obviously by JackieBrown · 2012-06-01 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is reasonable per Pelosi. As she said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
3. Re:Obviously by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-01 01:02 · Score: 2
  
  This is reasonable per Pelosi.
  
  Except, the Republicans run the House of Representatives now, and they run the Appropriations Committee who actually made this pronouncement, so wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that it is "reasonable per Boehner"? Or maybe, "reasonable per Koch" since that's who runs the Republican Party?
  I mean, if you wanted to be accurate...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
4. Re:Obviously by d3ac0n · 2012-06-01 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He IS being accurate. He is pointing out that hiding the content of legislation isn't a GOP problem, it's a Democrat problem, as evidenced by the video he linked.
  When Pelosi had control of the house, she intentionally and purposefully hid the contents of the "Obamacare" bill and used parliamentary tricks to avoid debate. There was even talk that the Democrats would use a trick called "Deem and Pass" to simply "Deem" the bill passed WITHOUT taking a vote on it. Yep, that's right; The Democrats, not the Republicans wanted to suspend the democratic process and simply force through a bill they wanted because people opposed it. This was a historical first for any Congress, and it was the Democrats that tried it. In the end they dropped it due to massive public pressure, and the bill passed on purely partisan lines. (Note that the Democrats had total control of both houses of Congress at the time.)
  Also, as another poster pointed out below, wanting a full accounting and report of any major project so that all interested parties can review it before signing off on the expenditure is a responsible thing to do, something we want our representatives doing. Why is this bad just because the GOP is doing it? Doesn't that strike you as a hypocritical position to take?
  As that other posted noted, this article is itself a troll and nothing but FUD. THOMAS isn't going down, even during the upgrade, so no access will be lost. The GOP just wants to do the upgrade properly and with full oversight. They should be applauded for being responsible with our money.
  
  --
  Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
5. Re:Obviously by hrvatska · 2012-06-01 02:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "Deem and Pass" Is Not "Without a Vote", and both parties use it. The Republicans used it to pass a budget bill in the House recently. The Dems used it in the House for healthcare legislation. The Republicans used it to pass the Bush tax cuts. There are plenty of examples of both parties using it. Both sides cry about the other side using this technique, but they both use it when it's to their advantage.
6. Re:Obviously by WrecklessSandwich · 2012-06-01 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You mean the "Deem and Pass" trick the Boehner House actually tried to use at least once for the godawful GOP budget bills to try to bypass the Senate? Doesn't that strike you as a hypocritical position to take? Quick, post some more out of context Fox News clips of out of context quotes to show what a partisan shill you are.
  It isn't the Democrats or the Republicans or even the (bad) 2-party system that's the problem. The problem is the Red vs. Blue adversarial partisan bullshit pushed by people like you that makes every issue divisive for its own sake to the point that nonsense like hiding the content of legislation and "Deem and Pass" are more attractive options than intelligent discussion. Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay must be spinning in their graves.
  That being said, I agree with you about TFA being complete nonsense.
7. Re:Obviously by 0bject · 2012-06-01 02:35 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Article I, Section 8, clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States Article I, Section 8, clause 3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
8. Re:Obviously by Maxo-Texas · 2012-06-01 03:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's purely a matter of saying it bluntly instead of trying to say it cleverly.
  You can't say, "You MUST pay $640 to buy health insurance"-- unconstitutional.
  But...
  You can say, "You MUST give the federal government $640 per year in taxes. The Federal government will provide you health care. There will be tax exemptions for people whose income is low". -- constitutional
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
9. Re:Obviously by Dishevel · 2012-06-01 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  This is where the problem lies.
  If it is a tax then it can skirt the 10th amendment. Though we would all agree that it would be "skirting" it as the constitution was clear.
  The issue is that it was not passed as a tax. They have legal issues if it is a tax. They have legal issues if it is not a tax.
  What I am seeing is that they are trying to tell us it "is/is not" a tax. They can only get it to be legal if they can convince the Supreme Court that it is both a tax and not a tax at the same time.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
10. Re:Obviously by cpu6502 · 2012-06-01 03:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Let's ask the author of the constitution (quoting from memory): "There is nothing more natural than to start with a general phrase, and qualify it with particulars. The phrase 'provide general welfare' is qualified by the list of specifically enumerated power below it. Congress may only exercise those powers.
  "To suppose Congress might do anything that falls within the 'general welfare' would give the central government unlimited power to do whatever it pleases, and there is a whole host of proofs that was never intended by the original framers, nor by myself." - James Madison, author of the Constitution.
  He also authored, with Jefferson, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which state the powers of the central government are few, while the bulk of the power is reserved to the People and their Legislatures (amendment 10). The Congress may not mandate you buy car insurance. But the States can. It is a power reserved to them, and the same is true of any other form of insurance.
  And finally:
  Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
11. Re:Obviously by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-06-01 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  I would be very surprised if ObamaCare even made it into THOMAS.
  It's been in there for years.
  I read every version of it as it was being debated, and the final version was in there at the end.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
12. Re:Obviously by nbauman · 2012-06-01 04:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113618
  The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate
  Einer Elhauge, J.D.
  N Engl J Med 2012; 366:e1January 5, 2012
  Others argue that the Constitution's framers could not possibly have envisioned a congressional power to force purchases. However, in 1790, the first Congress, which was packed with framers, required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798, Congress also required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. In 1792, Congress enacted a law mandating that all able-bodied citizens obtain a firearm. This history negates any claim that forcing the purchase of insurance or other products is unprecedented or contrary to any possible intention of the framers.
13. Re:Obviously by hey! · 2012-06-01 04:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I would be very surprised if ObamaCare even made it into THOMAS.
  Be surprised then. Both The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the earlier House version called The Affordable Health Care for America Act (subsequently amended into an entirely different bill) are in there. (And apropos of TFA, trying to find those bills then extract a stable URL is a pan because the UI appends session specific data to query result URLs).
  But it turns out there's a good reason why you might have the impression that Obama was secretive about the health insurance reform bill.
  Keep in mind that when it came to health insurance reform the political game had three sides. The Democrats in Congress wanted to pass the most ambitious reform bill they could manage. The White House wanted a bill big enough allow them to say they delivered on reform promises but not so big Obama face the kind of shit storm Clinton faced when he tried to do insurance reform. The Republicans wanted to force Obama and the House Democrats through the same political meat grinder they put Clinton through in the 1990s.
  Obama was inexperienced in national politics at this point. His strategy was to make a high profile call for reform, then leave it up to the House to come up with a package of specific proposals that it could pass. The intent was to get a reform bill passed without staking too much White House credibility on the specifics, and not to give opponents a political punching bag before the details of the actual bill had been worked out. This was a miscalculation. The Republicans were able to attack straw men proposals like death panels, bolstered by the lack of political leadership from the White House. And by leaving the specifics up to the House, Obama got a bill that was a lot more ambitious and politically risky than he wanted (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21reconstruct.html). It was also some 70 billion dollars more expensive than he wanted (source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34753.html).
  The House Democrats, for their part, based their proposals on Romney's Massachusetts plan, which in turn was based on Bob Dole's Republican alternative to Clinton's reform plans. While this would seem to be a politically safe move, the lack of leadership from the White House meant they ended up taking the political damage for a much more radical government takeover of health insurance, while at the same time alienating their base for *not* doing that.
  In the end Republicans were able to gain a significant political victory in Congress and and advantageous position against Obama at the price of enacting their own health care plan from the mid 1990s.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
14. Re:Obviously by CanHasDIY · 2012-06-01 04:38 · Score: 2
  
  Congress has the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. Not inside the states, and most-definitely not commerce between two individuals (me and my doctor). They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
  Dead on accurate, sir.
  
  In the interest of preserving Constitutional authority, I hope the SCOTUS decides in that manner regarding the individual mandate; however, given recent decisions by said court that blatantly flout the Constitutional rights of the People... I'm not holding my breath.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
15. Re:Obviously by geekoid · 2012-06-01 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "NOT the Congress."
  wrong.
  Section 8:
  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  How is it not general welfare?
  And lets no forget that some of our founding fathers went on to create a government health care program for some workers.
  I don't see how anyone can look at that and the say they didn't want the government to be able to do that.
  I wish there was a way to make the people who use the word socialism actually learn what that word means.
  Do you mean market socialist? economic socialists? do you actual mean Marxisms? independent socialist? Utopian socialists?
  Do you mean state joint ownership of companies? Or do you just hear that work on Fox when the are spoon feeding you what to think and assume it = 'bad'
  The pubs do thing that can be considered economic and market socialism. SO maybe you should start to think for yourself and read outside your echo chamber of stupid?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Opacity in government by SirGarlon · 2012-06-01 00:12 · Score: 2

A move to restrict public visibility into the legislative process seems like a bad idea in an election year. If only the minority party in the House had the balls to exploit this...

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
1. Re:Opacity in government by digitalsolo · 2012-06-01 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sorry, but you're delusional if you don't think that BOTH parties are all for removing public opinion and scrutiny from what they're doing.
  
  --
  Just another ignorant American.
2. Re:Opacity in government by sycodon · 2012-06-01 00:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You both are delusional because there is no mention of taking THOMAS offline while they decide on how to upgrade it.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by Covalent · 2012-06-01 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.

The government SHOULD do this, but if they refuse, simply go around them. This is how governments should always be treated: Encouraged when useful, bypassed when not.

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
1. Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by buchner.johannes · 2012-06-01 00:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  THOMAS may only allow 1 bill at a time, but there are only so many bills before Congress. Download them one at a time and make an external database. Host that site yourself.
  It would be nice to see a git-tree of legislations (revision history, diffs, who wrote what line when). I'm not expecting governments to do that, but it might be insightful and interesting.
  
  --
  NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
2. Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by wireloose · 2012-06-01 00:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't see it as a big issue, either. The original article and the repost here are all FUD. If you read the bill, the congressional concerns are that the legislative data is downloaded intact and authenticated. They seem to be concerned that there is no way to lock an XML file in a manner similar to a PDF, which is already a common format used by much of the federal government. There is also concern about certificates. And there is language about the costs of developing a system. It's all in the bill itself, pages 17 and 18.
  
  http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/LEGBRANCH-FY13-FULLCOMMITTEEREPORT.pdf
  
  Obviously, the biggest issue is that detractors for each party will modify downloaded bills to meet their own political agendas and mudslinging goals. I would prefer to see this done correctly, too.
3. Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by Hatta · 2012-06-01 01:22 · Score: 2
  
  These "concerns" are all bunk. Just supply an html directory tree of all the pending laws, with each law signed with GPG. You're done. I bet it would cost them less to implement this than to keep Thomas running.
  You don't even really need the GPG signatures. If someone edits a law for propaganda purposes, the original version should always be there for reference.
  There are no legitimate concerns here. Only stonewalling.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by ATMAvatar · 2012-06-01 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  I haven't looked too much at it to determine if it has that kind of fine-grained revision history, but what you are asking for is essentially here.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
5. Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by anagama · 2012-06-01 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That would surely require a constitutional amendment.
  Hardly. It would just require our silent acquiescence.
  Like how Obama has normalized Bush's radical policies of due process free detention, and has gone a step further with his policy of due process free execution. I mean, if your willing to let the executive branch on its own and in secret be the "due process" in the phrase "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," then there is absolutely nothing the president can't do because executing American citizens without trial is as big as it gets.
  Obama has been the worst thing to happen to freedom and liberty ever -- at least when GWB was doing the things Obama does, Democrats pretended to care and push back. Now they just silently acquiesce, or worse, actively support the constitutional destruction they once opposed (for instance Marty Lederman.
  As a liberal, I hate to say it, but we'd be better off with a freak like Santorum as president, who basically promised war with Iran, because then perhaps the Democrats would go back to pretending to care about peace and freedom, and fight back against all this crap. With Obama in the office for another four years though, the damage to civil liberties and freedom will be immense because Democrats will just sit on their hands and let it continue to happen.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
6. Re:Seems like a problem that could be fixed... by sycodon · 2012-06-01 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  I would suggest that Justice is implemented via a set of instructions. And that the fact the interpretation of a law changing over time due to different interpretations is a bad thing.
  Primary example is the Constitution. It has a very well defined mechanism to make changes that insure those changes are the result of a very broad agreement, which in itself requires a great amount of deliberation. Instead of the interpretation changing, the should change the document.
  Laws are more easily changed of course but the same principal applies. Don't interpret it differently, change it.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Conversely, in Canada by davecb · 2012-06-01 00:15 · Score: 2

The busy little beavers who track bills now include committee hearings. For example, here's some of the debate on the Copyright Act, C-11
--dave

--
davecb@spamcop.net
House Committee on Appropriations by SirGarlon · 2012-06-01 00:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Since the author of TFA was too lazy to Google for this and paste in a hyperlink, here is the current membership of the House Committee on Appropriations. If one of these jackass^H^H^H^H fine public servants represents your district, you might want to let him/her know what you think of this report.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Git by QuantumRiff · 2012-06-01 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I know there are all sorts of craziness for bills, but wouldn't something like a Git repository be ideal? that way, you can have the hash of the exact version of the bill your voting on, so the people know stuff wasn't 'slipped in' before it becomes law. Oh, wait, that is probably a 'feature'

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?
1. Re:Git by swillden · 2012-06-01 02:57 · Score: 2
  
  I know there are all sorts of craziness for bills, but wouldn't something like a Git repository be ideal? that way, you can have the hash of the exact version of the bill your voting on, so the people know stuff wasn't 'slipped in' before it becomes law. Oh, wait, that is probably a 'feature'
  I really need to get some time to work on it some more, but that was exactly the idea I had a few years ago when I set up github repositories to track the US Code and Utah Code.
  Of course, the only data I had easy access to was the codified law, some time after it was passed and went into effect, so my repos only track changes at that point. But, yes, what would be perfect is a distributed version control system that tracks the changes. Each legislator, each committee, each house would have its own fork, as would special interest groups, etc., even individual citizens with ideas about how to improve the law. Everyone could hack on their copies, push and pull changes, etc., all tracked by version history, and with official versions merging changes at point of adoption.
  Imagine being able to run "annotate" on the law to find out where each bit of it came from! Of course, true sources would still often be obscured.
  My next step, BTW (should I ever get time to hack on it), is to build a web UI that allows easy navigation of the code. I need to switch to pulling the XML version of the US Code from Cornell, then create some XSLT filters to hide some of the extraneous stuff and convert the links into a functional form and some stylesheets to present the code nicely, and finally create a web interface that allows the changes to be navigated and summarized.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Say no more by overshoot · 2012-06-01 00:49 · Score: 2

I am pretty sure that the majority of people on slashdot agree that being able to better understand how the various bills being considered by Congress interact would be good for this country.
And that explains why it must be prevented.

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
Huh? How to get from Point A to Point B? by sirwired · 2012-06-01 00:51 · Score: 2

Ok, the appropriations committee wants to delay money for a new system to replace THOMAS. But THOMAS doesn't limit access now, it just sucks. Congress could want to withhold money for a number of reasons, some legitimate (they don't like the bidding process for the new system), some less so (they have a favored systems integrator in mind.)
But if the current system is just lousy, but works, how is withholding a replacement in any way "limiting public availability of pending bills?"
Troll Headline and Summary by sycodon · 2012-06-01 00:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Let's try a more reasonable one...
"The House Appropriations Committee is considering holding off on modernizing THOMAS until the system "owners" finalize the specifications."
It is entirely reasonable to put a hold on a project until everyone knows what it's going to be and buys off on the changes.
I am pretty sure that the majority of people on Slashdot agree that to dive into a project that will undoubtedly be large and expensive and is highly visible without nailing down the details first is irresponsible and a recipe for failure.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:Troll Headline and Summary by sycodon · 2012-06-01 00:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I forgot to mention that there is no discussion of taking THOMAS offline pending the upgrade.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What's really going on... by sohmc · 2012-06-01 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I personally want to have the ability to read any bill that has been introduced. THOMAS is a good system, but horribly outdated. It could be made so much better. But we make do with what we have.
Improvements to the system should be that the database is updated in real-time, or at least as close to real-time as possible. There is no reason why this shouldn't be possible.
My guess, however, is that reps want not to be able to be accountable for their votes. Not many representatives have easy access to their voting record on their official web site. I know my old rep did (Frank Wolf) but my current (Jim Moran) does not. While the information can be found on THOMAS, it adds an additional step.
I know a few months ago, DC Counsel put an unpopular bill available online for comment. It was passed and when it finally it the news, there was outcry. The counsel said, "But you had a chance to comment." The problem was that they hid the bill on their website in a rarely browsed section, obfuscated, and ultimately in a place where no one would think to look. Stepping aside the fact that the news should have picked this up before it was voted on, the fact is that the DC Counsel followed the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
Every politician must be not be trusted, even if they are from "your party" or even if you voted for the guy. The framers had this in mind when writing the Constitution.
The thing that saddens me is that the original intentions of the Founding Fathers has long since gone: a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

--
We don't live in Shouldland.
Commerce among the several states by tepples · 2012-06-01 05:05 · Score: 2

The phrase 'provide general welfare' is qualified by the list of specifically enumerated power below it.
"To regulate commerce [...] among the several states" is one such power. Otherwise, how is Medicare legal?
Yes and no. by mbkennel · 2012-06-01 06:39 · Score: 2

Statement: They can NOT force me to buy insurance if I would rather pay cash directly to my physician.
This is true. It is impermissible for Congress to make failure to buy health insurance a federal crime.
The law actually in question does not do so, contrary to the paranoia of the right-wing crazies. It is improper terminology and a bad political idea to call it a "mandate" instead of what it actually is. It imposes a fine---more correctly a tax---on those who do not. And this is 100% legal.
It has been established precedent since the early 1800's (Supreme Court decisions) that the US Government has the power to tax even where it does not have the power to regulate, e.g. in this circumstance. Other examples, the US government imposes taxes on gasoline and tobacco, even when these items are consumed within states for non-commercial purposes.