Sept. 25 Daily News editorial

Congressman Brian Baird’s first attempt to impose a three-day “time out” before bringing a bill up for a vote, in 2006, fizzled. A Republican-led Congress let the bill die in the House Rules Committee, the final resting place for countless good legislative intentions. The Washington Democrat is determined not to let that happen again, even if it means defying the leaders of his party.

Baird joined Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., Wednesday in submitting a discharge petition aimed at forcing Democratic House leaders to bring his so-called “72-Hour Rule” legislation to the floor for a vote. The petition needs 218 signatures to force a vote. That should be doable. Baird’s bill, House Resolution 554, has solid Republican backing and the support of more than a few Democrats.

In 2006, the partisan split on this issue was reversed. Democrats were near unanimous in their support of a three-day review period for all House bills and Republicans were pretty much lock-step in their opposition to it. The partisan flip-flop this year was predictable. The party that happens to be in the majority can be counted on to take a dim view of an enforced waiting period between the time a bill is finalized and brought to the House floor for a vote. That’s because the party holding the majority writes the bills and finds it advantageous to bring them to a vote quickly, before the minority party has time to pick them apart and whip up public opposition.

Credit Baird for breaking with his party’s leaders, putting the public interest ahead of the partisan interest in controlling the legislative clock. Rushing big, complex spending bills to vote before most lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, have an opportunity to know exactly what’s in them invites waste and poor public policy. Baird’s bill would severely curtail that practice by requiring that bills be made available to House members and posted on the Internet for at least three days before a vote. It would put teeth in the House’s existing three-day rule, which is easily and routinely waived. The legislation would require a two-thirds vote of the full House to waive the rule, making it difficult to impossible the majority party to rush bills to the floor.

“This isn’t about politics,” Baird said in a press release issued Wednesday. “Both parties are guilty (of rushing bills to the floor). Now is the time to fix this once and for all, and put rules in place so that Congress is better able to serve the American people. People should have a chance to read what is in legislation before it comes law, not after.”

Baird contends that imposing a 72-hour rule is simply a matter of common sense. We agree. Taking a few days to review bills and giving the public a more of chance to learn what’s in them is only sensible. A three-day time out would likely boost both government transparency and the quality of legislation.