Source Control For Bills In Congress? 300
grepya writes "An article in Slate talks about the sneaky way a major change in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill was made by (possibly) a Congressional staffer without even his boss knowing about it. (The change increased the power of the Executive at the expense of the other two branches of government.) Now, I write software for a large and complex system containing millions of lines of code and I know that nobody could slip a single line of code into my project without my knowledge. This is because everything that goes into the build goes into a source control system, and email notification is generated to interested parties. This is for a body of work that affects perhaps a few hundred thousand people at most (our company and the combined population of all our customer organizations). Shouldn't the same process be applied to bills being debated in national legislatures that affect potentially hundreds of millions of people?"
alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:alternatively... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I was just discussing this with someone today - if the "readings" in Congress were mandatory and could not be bypassed by consent, we'd have a much better legal system for a variety of reasons - Congressional representatives couldn't claim ignorance, there would be an incentive to keep bills shorter, and an unexpected change would be noticed more readily.
Is it just me or does the idea of a major legislative body just sitting around, listening to someone read what everyone concerned should already know, seem quite wasteful?
Even if they did do as you say a subtle change snuck in could still slip past because no one is paying attention (as they feel it's a waste of time and the change is subtle). The problem, as the submitter said, is realizing that a handful of words among thousands have just changed. The solution, as the submitter said, is some form of sour
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Really need both: change control & full review (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think: if you were working on a big software or documentation project, would you want your QA process to involve nothing but some guy standing up and reading the source code out loud? No way -- everyone would be asleep or bored to tears (well, unless it was Perl, then they'd probably be waiting for his face to just fall off).
There's a reason that change management is a big issue, in addition to peer review and transparency. In fact, they compliment each other. When you can produce a list of what each person has changed, you have a basis for what you want to concentrate your reviewing efforts on.
Now, change-management isn't a cureall -- anyone in software knows that just because something hasn't changed, doesn't mean it's not buggy. You could change something that causes something that hasn't been changed to break, or you could just discover a bug later; either of those things are possible with laws as well as software. Unless you also have some way of tracking dependencies within the bills (cross references, etc.), it might be possible to "break" the law (make it internally inconsistent) with a minor change somewhere else. So that would still require full readings.
Still, it's ridiculous that there isn't something in place right now, to prevent some staffer from just sneaking language into a bill that's a surefire pass, without anyone noticing until it gets printed up in the Congressional Record.
On the whole, maybe Congress needs to hire some QA people? I mean, it's obvious they have a "client satisfaction" (voters) issue, and that the "deliverables" (laws) really suck
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most bills are already written on as patches, with the authors indentified.
Re:Really need both: change control & full rev (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd hardly call it english. Legalise really is its own form of code.
I think the GP's point stands, it'd be useful to have some sort of independent QA organization that would validate a bill against its intent.
Of course, then again, I think Pork should be illegal as well. Putting a $100 million into a defense spending bill for Senator Tube's state to build a bridge to an island of 50 people should get someone hung.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I propose a computer program with a pseudorandom number generator that simply votes "yes" 90% of the time. It would have roughly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The way to make a difference is to support people who actually try to change the rules. People who supp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So just blindly voting on a bill you haven't read is somehow better? I'd rather they didn't do anything rather than pass shitty laws. Look at the freakin DMCA mess.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a whole lot better than a sham that gives people warm fuzzy feelings but doesn't actually accomplish it's stated purpose. (See: Security Theatre.)
Re:alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a pizza-delivery, its our government. Our Representatives are behaving in a shamefully negligent manner. We need Congress to change its rules to require at LEAST 24-hours for the text being voted on the be processed by the body before a vote is taken. They could, of course, waive this requirement in emergency circumstances, but not by voice-vote. This would cut drastically down on this game... I would wager MOST congressmen don't really know what is in every bill they vote for or against. Their could be a provision to legalize the eating of puppies, or a proposition to give $200 to every guy named Steve in Tuscaloosa, AL... they'd never know until the checks were cut--and then only if the press got wind of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Add release dates. We're not running US Gov't 'Cunning Congress' until Jan 12, 2008. For the moment, we're running 'Artful Assembly'.
I think I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
1) Don't be a twit.
Sincerely,
Congress
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I think I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
BROUGHT TO YOU BY EXXON-MOBIL
Alternative 2 (Score:2, Funny)
Oops, seem to have made some bad mistakes voting in some idiots in the last election? No problems just type "cvs update -D 2000-01-01 congress" and get back the congress you had back then.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Alternative 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:alternatively... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Tee-hee! That was modded funny!
Seriously, though, it doesn't mean anything unless you actually test them on the meaning of the bill as you'd test a student. The equivalent law in the New York State Assembly used to require (as of a few years ago--I don't know if it still does) that the bill phsyically sit on the assemblyperson's desk for two days before it's passed. So they'd print out hundreds of copies of hundreds of pages
alternatively...RTF(_) (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and stop passing so many damned bills...
I don't think you understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't think you understand (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I read about something called the Federal Register [wikipedia.org] the other day. As I understand, it is a daily publication of the GPO, responsible for creating a record of public government communication.
Where does this fit into the equation? Wikipedia says it has been operating since the 1930s. That to me suggests existing infrastructure. Could this program be adopted to handle pending Congressional legislation? Does something similar exist already? Are these even valid questions? I'm trying to get a sense of the public accounting context that exists today.
Now, once we set up a legislative mechanism to get the information in place, there are practical considerations. I happen to agree with the parent's cynicism. Open government is less corrupt government, and there will surely be resistance to a program like this. What is the likelihood that something like this would be ignored? The aforementioned Wikipedia states that the Register is for public notices not "classified." Do government agencies really bother? Would Congress bother? Would it matter, practically speaking?
Then there's the question of volume. I understand the current Register is thousands upon thousands of pages. What would be the best way to handle all this data? Pressure our Congressmen to form a committee to look into the possibility of proposing vaguely worded, easily subverted legislation that would create a billion dollar, privacy infringing, twenty-year behemoth of a program? Or dictate simply that the data should be available in a specified format (something akin to a patch) in a timely manner.
I think the latter would be better, because it would force We the People to take a little responsibility for the program. I mean really, who doesn't think that an enterprising group of dedicated people, working for free in their spare time would work more efficiently than a monstrous bureaucracy? Sound like a familiar Slashdot battle?
Either someone will rise to the challenge and write a utility to "visualize" the data in an interesting way, or not. If not, I think we have bigger problems than Congressmen not reading their bills.
Make the data (near) freely available, then leave it up to The People to figure out how to use it. That's my take.
Congressional Record, not Fed. Rgstr. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html [gpoaccess.gov]
There seems to be a way on that site, although I don't really want to try it myself, to sign up to receive the daily Table of Contents via email. That's about as close to `tail -f` as you can get to it, I think.
The other problem is that I'm not sure the Federal Register carries much that would help you track particular bills as they make their way through the Belly of the Beast -- for that, you'd need t
Re: (Score:2)
They are true patriots, and will of course vote yes on the PATRIOT act, no matter whats in it.
The main objective for anyone wanting power, is denouncing all opposition as unpatriotic.
Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the same process be applied to bills being debated in national legislatures that affect potentially hundreds of millions of people?
You mentioned getting email notifications about changes to the repository. You work with the code every day (or nearly every day). You see, these representatives in congress often times vote on bills which they have not even themselves read. They get the executive summary.
That is like the difference between you reading the code for a newly modified parser class and getting one of your underlings to brief you about the changes. You might spend an hour or more reading source code for a whole new class, and only two minutes getting briefed on it. You have to get them actually read the bills first.
Maybe we should require that all bills be read aloud in their entirety in an open session of congress?
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
You add version control... The first thing they'll do is hire aides to add literally thousands of minute ammendments to every bill for the simple reason that it now becomes impossible to read every minor change log. They may well not sneak anything nefarious in to this bill, the next one or the next ten. Then, one day, fifty bills later, after people have long since given up reading change logs, one of the thousand minor edits will do just what they're currently doing.
With source control for code, you can monitor what goes in because people are rarely actively trying to sneak anything in. If you do have someone who wants that chance and so starts spamming change logs, you can identify their malicious intent, go to your boss and get them fired. In congress, sadly, they've long since turned a blind eye to such pork barrel [wikipedia.org] behavior and, if they turn a blind eye to it in this form, there's no reason not to expect them to turn a blind eye to it in a future form.
The original poster's mistake is thinking that congress somehow wants to not be corrupt. Yes, we can force a fix on one form... not that they actually want that fix... but, as the old saying goes, "Where there's a will, there's a way." and a lot of politicians have a very strong will for sneaking in self serving measures.
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
r152892 | subcommittee-5928 | 2007-03-05 22:48:02 -0500 (Mon, 05 Mar 2007) | 2 lines
* Compromise to end bickering over -r152891
--Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.Reason: Please use fewer --
Individual lawmakers do not make changes, afaik.
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the watchdog groups don't catch the shenanigans before the bill passes, there will at least be a transparent record of who did what.
Public accountability has a way of leading to public pressure. A Senator/Congressman will only be able to fire so many aides for sneaking in legislation before the public will say "maybe the problem isn't with the aides."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, you don't give commit privileges to interns. The only people with commit privs are actual senators/representatives/PMs. So some lackey can't change things without express authority from their privileged boss.
Of course, lackeys will still do all the typing and doc prep. Then somebody with access to commit privs will do the final commit without even proofreading it. So you say that everything is same old, same old. But the chan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Alternatively, require the bills to be written entirely on
Paperless Congress (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe if some of the politicians passing laws about technology were a bit more tech savvy we wouldn't see any of this. Corruption by camouflage. I bet that even though the changes weren't supposed to be in there. They won't be amended. That would just be silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trying to convince the people where I work to go digital with all our documents, I even started a wiki for docum
Read the Bills Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Very Simple To Do (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone here at Slashdot know someone on the inside?
Should, yes... (Score:5, Funny)
*SQL = Staffer Quill Language
Yes, and a debuggable malloc too. (Score:5, Interesting)
I once had a conversation with a lawyer friend, who explained that there are portions of the law that refer to laws that have been repealed. I tried to explain to him that in computing this is directly analogous to de-referencing a pointer to memory that's been free()'d. We all know what this does in a program. In law, it perhaps there is a default judgement in cases like this. He was just a law student at the time, and IANAL, so maybe some real lawyers could explain how this situation is handled now.
Throw in a garbage collector as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Throw in a garbage collector as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, as long as there's somebody to implement an OnSunset() function that notifies the legislature. Otherwise, you could end up with situations where, for example, the meat industry suddenly no longer has to control rodents, and nobody realizes it until they walk into their local KFC and find that all the chicken has been replaced by.... oh... nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fragile base class (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if it's because it's the Christian Sabbath, it would seem like the First Amendment to the US Constitution (extended to the States via the 14th) applies.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel dirty just for writing that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shall
Don't be silly ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Merging (Score:2)
Has happened before... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/
Yeah or maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Read The Bills Act (Score:5, Informative)
A group called DownSizeDC.org is promoting a bill that would force every legislator who votes for a bill to sign a declaration that have either read the entire text of the bill, or had it read to them. The "Read the Bills Act" would also require that every piece of legislation be posted on the Net in its final form for a full 7 days before any vote could occur, giving the rest of us time to read and react...
There used to be requirements in US House and Senate for reading of the bills, but they both routinely waive that requirement. If it were required, the number and complexitiy of bills actually presented would go down dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read The Bills Act (Score:5, Funny)
Omnibus bill solution: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you didn't really back up your statement with any facts. It sounded like you're saying congress and the senate shouldn't have to do their job because it's too hard to read? Was r
Great suggestion but... (Score:2, Interesting)
For them, I'm guessing this idea ranks right up there with allowing more CSPAN cameras, databases on attendance (+other metrics), term limits, etc. If we get a bill addressing this topic, I'm sure it's title will match the concept far more than the content.
Anot
Not needed. (Score:5, Informative)
Bills are already drafted using XML assigned numbers. Any amenment to a bill has its own number, bills which are "engrossed" or passed have a different number. They know exactly what they are voting for.
http://xml.house.gov/ [house.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not needed. (Score:4, Insightful)
and another thing, as many are alluding to, a document control system won't prevent the compiling of assinine code. but what it will do is give you a forensics system. it makes people accountable in a way which is easily monitored. if bad legislation is enacted, you can always make amendments, and the dcs will make it easy to highlight exactly what was changed so that you may check it with a minimum of labor at the last minute before voting again. both legislators and congressional aides would have little excuse for their improper actions and inactions.
now for the bad news. the system relies on computers, and most of your legislators (senators at least, and probably most representatives) are still computer illiterate. their aides aren't, of course, but most of these people just want you to show them the piece of paper to sign, or the yes/no button to push, so that they can get back to their golfing/schmoozing.
and also, who controls the document control system? it would be necessary to have complete openness so that the googles of the world could record every change as it occured in real time. and for matters of national security, much of the publicly-accessible law would have to be redacted. perhaps something like a checksum for redacted material could be provided to at least ensure that unviewable text hasn't been tampered with.
Would PARALYZE government (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Would PARALYZE governmento (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply, NO. (Score:2, Insightful)
As if we can expect people who think global warming and evolution are "completely lacking any evidence" and who believe the internet is a series of tubes to actually understand what version tracking is, anyway!
Applying principles of engineering to legislation (Score:2)
Re:Applying principles of engineering to legislati (Score:2)
In Microsoft terms, "legal bloat".
Maybe... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sarbanes Oxley (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act [wikipedia.org]
Delay voting (Score:2)
Yeah right (Score:2)
Been there... Done that (Score:5, Insightful)
Elegant (Score:2, Insightful)
That's one of the most brilliant ideas I've heard in years.
However, to be successful, it requires that legislators actually *care* what they are voting on. Realistically, they must have something like source control already. Voters have to send them the message that ignorance is no excuse. It's not technology that's holding them back.
Voting on a bill without reading it, if it can be proved, should result in expulsion. If you sign a contract on behalf of your employer without reading it, you would almost
Brilliant Idea! (Score:2, Funny)
$ svn blame PATRIOT
Problems abound with this idea (Score:3, Interesting)
But, I think that there is another much more practical problem with this. Do we honestly think that people that think the internet is a series of tubes will be able to handle something like CVS?
Not a useful solution (Score:2)
The solution would be to limit congress to something like one typewritten page per day for anything that spends money or has a binding eff
Slipping a line of code in... (Score:2)
So instead of CVS for congress, we need software that ensures that the bills are actually being read. My idea, which is far too sensible to ever be made into law, is to have speech software recite upon the floor of the House or Senate, the text of the
Let's look at the change log (Score:5, Informative)
First, we're talking about 109th Congress, H.R. 3199, section 502, "INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS." Version control is in Thomas [loc.gov], run by the Library of Congress. (Unfortunately, you can't link to Thomas documents effectively; it's a front end to a non-Web system and the URLs are temporary.)
So where did that go in? The versions passed by the House and Senate are quite different, and this bill was rewritten in conference committee. This language isn't in either the House or the Senate version. We go to the Bill Summary and Status File, and look under "Amendments". This is the change log for the bill. Nothing about this is in there.
This change was added in the House-Senate conference committee, which is how stuff like this usually sneaks in.
The only reference to this change is in the conference committee's report, at House Congressional Record page H1130. The text is:
Section 502. Interim appointment of United States Attorneys
Section 502 is a new section and addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of United States Attorneys.
That's where it went in. But there's no indication of who put it there. The members of the conference committee were appointed by the Speaker of the House, and they were:
One of those members of Congress is responsible.
Why? (Score:2)
A solution (Score:3, Funny)
Kill all of the Bush family, put stakes in their hearts and bury them at crossroads. Burn down all their businesses and spread salt on their farms. Ditto for the Cheney family. You'd probably want to do the same for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz too just to be safe.
Wait, what was the question again?
(note for the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, Police, Secret Service and President Bush: this is a joke)
Re: (Score:2)
The vote without even reading/knowing the bills (Score:3, Interesting)
They 'know' that cuts in any pet spending program cannot be made because we cannot 'afford to pay for the cuts'.
They hypocritically claim to know that we cannot afford to cut anything and yet admit that they vote for legislation that they do not know how
Re:The vote without even reading/knowing the bills (Score:5, Insightful)
On a sidenote, taxes are in addition to jobs. Laws ARE their job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As an admitted conservative with libertarian leanings:
The fun is, if the program is up for a 10% increase, and it gets knocked to an 7% increase, its called a C U T .
Now, to the rest of it:
The sneaky language and the ability to get provisions in, and the human, lazy, congress critters no controlling their own bills, or reading them prior to voting for them is exactly why sweeping security bil
Re:I think I saw this. (Score:4, Funny)
No, no no, you're thinking of the one where Jack yelled into his cellphone "Chloe, There's NO TIME!", got shot and died, was brought back to life, saved the President, yelled "DAMMIT!", confonted the bad guy (a different high ranking government official bad guy than last week), pulled out his gun, pistol-whipped the high ranking government official and threatened to kill him with "TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO KNOW NOW!"
Re:I think I saw this. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Which other countries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spain? Raped and plundered the new world, lost some wars, was never a big player again.
France? Revolted against its 'Honorable Feudal systems'- because they were stupid. Revolted agaisnt most of its other systems too. "The French are revolting" has been true at almost every point in History.
Britain? Got involved in world conquest,