Oct. 28 Daily News editorial

The nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation last week awarded Congressmen Brian Baird, D-Wash., and John Culberson, R-Texas, its Sunlight on the Hill Award. It’s well-deserved recognition of their commitment to passing Baird’s proposed 72-hour rule, which would require a three-day “timeout” to give lawmakers and the public time to read legislation before a final vote is taken.

Baird has been unflinching in his commitment to providing this added measure of transparency in government, unlike his party’s leadership. House Democratic leaders give rhetorical support to the idea of a 72-hour wait before voting on bills, but refuse to consider a rule mandating that wait.

No doubt, Baird caught the eye of Sunlight Foundation officials when he refused to acquiesce to the wishes of his party’s leaders. A month ago, the Southwest Washington Democrat joined with Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., to submit a discharge petition aimed at forcing Democratic House leaders to bring his 72-hour rule bill to the floor for a vote. A week later, Baird attempted to make a statement by voting against a bill to fund a Mount St. Helens flood control program, which he supports. House leaders had called for the vote just 19 hours after the 400-page bill was presented to members.

It’s doubtful that Baird’s “statement” vote registered with his party’s leaders. But we had high hopes for the discharge petition filed in late September. It needed only 218 signatures to force House leaders to bring the 72-hour rule up for a vote. With Republicans solidly behind the legislation and a good number of Democrats seemingly onboard for more transparency, that number appeared doable.

As of this week, however, only 182 members have signed the petition, five less than have signed onto Baird’s bill as co-sponsors. Just about all of those signing the discharge petition are Republicans. Democrats, for the most part, don’t want to force their leaders’ hand.

Not wanting to defy party leaders is typical in both parties. It’s also typical that the party in control of Congress doesn’t want to be forced to slow the legislative process down. In 2006, the Republicans controlled Congress and just about all Republican members opposed a three-day review period for House bills. At that time, Democrats were wildly enthusiastic about the concept.

Baird’s consistency on this issue is noteworthy — and commendable. Rushing big spending bills to a vote before anyone has had time to give them a thorough review invites waste and flawed public policies. Equally concerning, it allows lawmakers to slip all manner of laws under the public radar.

Baird’s legislation sharply curtail that practice without unduly slowing down the legislative process. It would require that House bills be made available to members and posted on the Internet for at least three days before a vote. Waiving that rule would require a two-thirds vote of the full House. This is a sensible way to ensure more government transparency and improve the quality of legislation. House leaders ought to allow a vote of Baird’s bill before, not after, the final health-care reform bill is completed.