ANDER CRENSHAW IS SPONSORING THIS BILL!

IF YOU ARE IN THIS TREASONOUS TRAITORS DISTRICT LIKE I AM CALL AND GIVE THEM A PIECE OF YOUR MIND!! Go here https://www.popvox.com and voice your opinion to your rep put in the HR5882 in the right hand corner! Then call your rep at 202 225 3121 and tell them NO to HR5882!!
https://forms.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/write/crenshaw/ zip-auth.txt&form=/write/crenshaw/email.shtml (email him here!)
CALL NOW TO THE HOUSE!!!! THIS MUST BE STOPPED! THIS WILL MAKE IT EVEN HARDER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THESE TRAITORS ARE DOING AND DOES NOT ALLOW 3rd PARTIES TO GIVE OPINION IE THE TRUTH ON THE BILLS COMING OUT OF CONGRESS! If you are in Cantors or Houses District they are opposing this bill! AND YOU WONDER WHY THIS IS IN THE HOUSE!!!CALL THE HOUSE NOW202 225 3121

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/h_r_5882_ would_make_it_harder_to_track_congress_g ovtrack_us H.R. 5882 would make it harder to track Congress
GovTrack is asking you to tell your representative to fix H.R. 5882.

The American public cant be trusted with records about what Congress is doing, at least according to Congressman Crenshaw (FL4) and the subcommittee he chairs. H.R. 5882 may come to the floor this week with Crenshaws provision that rolls back the clock on transparency.

Tips for your letter:

You oppose H.R. 5882 because. . . Congress should publish bulk legislative data. If you are a regular GovTrack user, mention GovTrack in your letter and say why GovTrack is important to you. Otherwise write about how you have used information about Congress. If you are in Crenshaws district, your voice is crucial! If you are in Majority Leader Cantors district or Rep. Hondas district, thank them for their efforts supporting bulk data over the past year. In the committee report attached to H.R. 5882, the House Appropriations Committee responded to requests from GovTrack and other groups about particular technological measures Congress can take to improve legislative transparency. The committees response not only said no, it talked of Congresss responsibility to confirm or invalidate third party analyses of legislative data, as if were too feeble to handle information about our government ourselves. A world without bulk legislative data is a world where everyday citizens couldnt ask simple questions such as how often is a bill enacted or what bills are coming up next week, a world where there are no tools for legislative tracking like email updates, and a world where there is no need for journalists because what Congress tells us is sufficient. Crenshaw has some explaining to do if he doesn't think Americans can handle the data. We reached out to his office for a comment but did not receive a response. For more information about what the House Appropriations Committee is trying to do . . .

See our blog post about the bill. Tweet us at @GovTrack with questions about whats going on. Read Sunlight Foundations explanation for how the committee is putting a damper on progress in transparency Learn why this isnt just about accountability, from the Cornell Universitys Legal Information Institute

H.R. 5882 is the bill to fund Congresss staff and support agencies for 2013. Crenshaw is the chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch and the sponsor of H.R. 5882.

Increasing Transparency in the Federal Government

In this age of instant availability of every type of information, privacy has become a carefully guarded commodity. But when it comes to the workings of our government, we want transparency rather than secrecy. We feel entitled to know every action and how every tax dollar is being spent. Without question, government entities have become more open than they were several decades ago; however, many people think they have not gone as far as they should. Because members of Congress are elected to serve and act on behalf of their constituents, the legislative branch should logically be the most public governing entity. And since the 1970s both legislative chambers have changed their procedures and practices to promote greater transparency. Today, lawmakers use a variety of online tools to more effectively engage and communicate with their constituents. Congressional committees have publicly-accessible websites and the House even has a Congressional Transparency Caucus that suggests further openness initiatives for the legislative branch. In addition to gavel-to-gavel coverage on C-SPAN, congressional proceedings are recorded on several websites open to the public. Still, much congressional business is conducted behind the scenes, and lawmakers insist that finding compromises and building coalitions would be impossible to do other than in private. Executive branch policy has fluctuated between secrecy and transparency. The Clinton administration favored transparency. The George W. Bush White House was often criticized for its lack of openness, but his was an administration dealing with a global war on terror, so some justification could certainly be found for secrecy. During his 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama promised to enact several policies to make the White House more ethical and transparent. Government reform groups say he has fallen short on several of those promises, although his administration does get respectable marks from many watchdog groups on overall transparency efforts. This is the first administration that has made a very concerted effort to enhance transparency of most aspects of the governmental process, said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. Weve seen a great deal accomplished under the Obama administration, but there has been somewhat of a letdown for those of us in the reform community because we want more, he added. He says watchdog groups are concerned about what will happen should Obama lose his reelection bid. It could easily be undone if the achievements are not placed into regulations, Holman said. House leaders are considering legislation to establish a permanent transparency board and make information about government contractors and grantees publicly available on a single website. The board proposed in the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, or DATA, (H.R. 2146) would set guidelines to ensure that federal spending data is in a consistent programming language so it can be easily mined to detect fraud and oversee government contractors. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the proposal would cost taxpayers $575 million over the next five years. Universities have lobbied against the DATA Act. The Association of American Universities warned that the bill would increase compliance costs for cash-strapped higher education institutions and could force some schools to increase tuition costs to cover paperwork and other administrative burdens. Viewpoint Ellen Miller, co-founder and executive director, Sunlight Foundation: We all agree on a few basic principles: government spending must be transparent and citizens engaged with government online; they must be met step-by-step with tools that empower them to track every dollar the government spends.... In providing genuine accountability for government spending, the government must keep in mind three principles. First, transparency is governments responsibility. Second, public information must be online. Third, data quality and presentation matter. Data should be made available online in a timely fashion so that it can be easily found and reused by anyone subject only to common sense limitations. I think there have been significant strides in this administrations efforts at creating a transparent and open

government. I believe it could be done faster. I think it could be done better.... The number of people who are going online to receive information, the numbers are increasing astronomically. So while I think the administration is taking significant steps, we need to go much further and faster and this legislation [DATA Act] would put many of the reporting responsibilities into law with enforcement mechanisms we think are important. Viewpoint Walter Oleszek, senior specialist, Congressional Research Service report: How to distinguish reasonable legislative secrecy from impractical transparency is a topic that produces disagreement on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Why?... To produce an act of Congress involves members and many other relevant actors who come together - meeting publicly and privately - to craft policies that they believe promote and serve the national interest. Both secrecy and transparency suffuse the lawmaking process. The two are not either/or constructs; they overlap constantly during the various policy-making stages.... Legislative secrecy...has been part of the policy-making process from Congresss very beginning and it remains an integral aspect of the lawmaking process. The Framers - who drafted the U.S. Constitution in closed meetings - even included a secrecy provision in that document.... Secrecy has its place in Congress, especially in building winning coalitions behind the scenes through horse trading and other means. Persuasion is typically more effective in private than in a public setting. Although secrecy carries a negative connotation, for more than 200 years it has been recognized by numerous legislative practitioners as essential to the conduct of congressional business.