<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Read the Bill Legislation Introduced in House</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/17/read-the-bill-legislation-introduced-in-house/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/17/read-the-bill-legislation-introduced-in-house/</link>
	<description>Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:39:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: joyce capron</title>
		<link>http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/17/read-the-bill-legislation-introduced-in-house/comment-page-1/#comment-110214</link>
		<dc:creator>joyce capron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:47:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=9543#comment-110214</guid>
		<description>HR554 sounds like a winner.  Good luck to Biard &amp; Culberson &amp; their supporters.  

Given the convoluted style in which most legislation is written, I would like to see a requirement that the internet posting include a summary comprehensible to non-lawyers.  People should be able to understand it without having to look up cross-references in the encyclopedia-sized code of US law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HR554 sounds like a winner.  Good luck to Biard &amp; Culberson &amp; their supporters.  </p>
<p>Given the convoluted style in which most legislation is written, I would like to see a requirement that the internet posting include a summary comprehensible to non-lawyers.  People should be able to understand it without having to look up cross-references in the encyclopedia-sized code of US law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ps</title>
		<link>http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/17/read-the-bill-legislation-introduced-in-house/comment-page-1/#comment-94068</link>
		<dc:creator>ps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/?p=9543#comment-94068</guid>
		<description>After reading H.Res.554, I&#039;m a little confused on something. The bill states that the current time window for report availability is already at 3 days. The only thing I can see that is new is that the reports are stated to be available on the internet to Members. Is that the only difference between the current rules and H.Res.554? 
I certainly don&#039;t expect bills containing classified material to be available to the public online. I believe H.Res.554 states this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading H.Res.554, I&#8217;m a little confused on something. The bill states that the current time window for report availability is already at 3 days. The only thing I can see that is new is that the reports are stated to be available on the internet to Members. Is that the only difference between the current rules and H.Res.554?<br />
I certainly don&#8217;t expect bills containing classified material to be available to the public online. I believe H.Res.554 states this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
