Slashdot Mirror
House Appropriators May Limit Public Availability of Pending Bills
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.