Aug. 16 Daily News editorial

Members of Congress are being hit with all sorts of invective and advice at town hall meetings across the country this month. One choice piece of advice — “read the bill!” — seems particularly popular among those opposed to the health-care reform. Their implication is that advocates of reform are rushing the process so as to slip something sinister passed right-thinking members of Congress and the American people.

Reading bills before voting “yea” or “nay” on them is a good idea, but we don’t believe anything in this health-care bill is going get slip passed anyone. There simply are too many eyes trained on the still-evolving bill for any legislative sleight of hand.

Nonetheless, the chances are good that Southwest Washington Congressman Brian Baird will be told to “read the bill” one or more times at his town hall in Longview next Wednesday. If so, those dispensing the advice might be surprised to learn that they’re preaching to the choir. Baird has for many years advocated changes House rules to ensure that both members of Congress and the public have time to read bills before they come up for a vote.

The congressman, in fact, recently re-introduced legislation he first offered in 2006 to require that all House bills be made available to members and posted on the Internet for at least 72 hours before a vote is taken. House rules currently require that bills be made available only to lawmakers three days before a vote, but that three-day rule is routinely waived. Baird would require a two-thirds vote of the full House to waive the three-day rule, making it difficult to impossible for the majority party to rush bills to the floor.

Rushing the process is something both Democrats and Republicans tend to do, when they hold a majority. It’s not done so much to slip something by the minority members or the public as it is to deny the minority party time to whip up public sentiment against the legislation. Momentum and timing can determine the fate of any bill. Delay can defeat a bill that might otherwise have easily passed on its merits.

But parties in the majority have tended to take their advantage too far on legislation they deem very important, giving neither House members nor the public an opportunity to know exactly what’s in the bill. That happened in 2006 with the big Medicare drug-benefit bill, when the Republicans were in control of the House. A vote was held the day after the bill’s completion. No one had time to give it a thorough reading. Baird introduced his first “72-hours” bill shortly afterward. It was popular among Democrats, but not Republicans. The bill died in the House Rules Committee, the final resting place for countless good legislative intentions.

Baird’s proposal probably has no better chance of serious consideration today than it did when he was in the minority party. Republicans will be onboard; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, offered an almost identical three-day bill in April. But it’s doubtful that Baird will be able to enlist a majority of his Democratic colleagues.

Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe House members will vote for the more deliberative legislative process rather than their partisan interests. We hope so. Posting House bills on the Internet and calling a 72-hour time out is only sensible. It would boost both government transparency and the quality of legislation.