More on Eric Cantor and “Read the Bill”

Flickr/<a href="">jeff_golden</a> (<a href="">Creative Commons</a>).

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Monday, I wrote about future House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s pledge to adhere to the “three day rule,” which requires legislation be posted online three days before the House votes on it. Here’s why I think just reading the bill isn’t enough:

Better ‘read the bill’ reform would start, I think, with extending to all of Congress the Senate Finance Committee’s tradition of debating and voting on bills written in ‘conceptual language’—otherwise known as plain English. If that was the standard for what was being voted on and discussed and posted on the web in advance, ordinary people and members of Congress (and journalists, for that matter) would be much more likely to actually understand what was going on.

There’s more to this story, though. Conceptual language is great for understanding a bill initially. But eventually lawyers have to translate it into bill text. If something gets lost in translation, lawmakers sometimes have to spend years trying to get it corrected. A friend suggested a way around this: make committee reports more available and accessible.

Committee reports are actually pretty readable (here’s one on a FEMA oversight bill), and offer not just an explanation for what the bill does but also why people believe it’s necessary.

Report language even has some of the effect of law because courts use it when they’re looking for evidence of congressional intent. But right now, you need to sift through link after link on THOMAS to get from the text of a bill to a report explaining what it does. Also, too many people don’t even know that these committee reports exist.

This is fixable. If using conceptual language is impractical, Congress could just require these comprehensive, readable reports—reports that are already written for bills as they are passed out of Committee—be made easily accessible online. It would certainly be a step in the right direction. Does the bill you’re trying to understand today have a committee report associated with it? You can search committee reports here.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend