Senator Fumo made the following remarks in testimony before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, January 31, 2006

We announced this proposal in December and we plan to circulate the language of the constitutional amendment for co-sponsorship in the near future.  Our objective is quite simple and should be non-controversial – we want to make sure that members of the legislature have an opportunity to read and understand a piece of legislation before they vote on it, and that they have a chance to obtain input from their constituents.

The spirit of the constitution already provides for that, with a requirement that all bills be considered for at least three separate days on the calendar, but unfortunately we in the legislature have been clever enough to figure out ways to circumvent those requirements. So what we are trying to do here is create much more specific provisions to make sure that the legislature acts in a way that is consistent with the intent of the constitution.

We believe the time is overdue to halt "sneak" legislation, and to guarantee greater opportunity for public participation.

The reforms were designed in consultation with Common Cause.

The broadest provision would prevent any bill from passing a chamber unless it has been on the calendar at least 72 hours, in its final form as amended by that body.

Two other proposals would increase opportunities for hearings. Under the first, 10 percent of the elected members of the either the House or Senate could require a public hearing on the final version of a bill, as amended, before it is brought up for final passage. Under the second, no bill on concurrence could be amended as to change the scope of its original purpose, unless, prior to passage, the bill, as amended, has been subject of a public hearing.

The proposals would also give any adult resident of the Commonwealth legal standing to challenge the manner in which a bill has been considered and passed, and would state that any bill passed in violation of these legislative mandates is void.

If citizens are to have confidence in the work we do here at the Capitol, they must know that their elected representatives are taking the time to study and understand legislation before casting a vote.

We plan to introduce these proposals as statutes so that they take effect immediately after passage. And we will also introduce identical legislation as constitutional amendments, which would have to be approved by two separate sessions of the legislature and then be approved by voters in a referendum. The earliest that could happen we be spring of 2007.

The controversial pay raise was enacted last July through the use of a gut-and-amend process that has become all to common. Bills are given their three days on the calendar, then either in committee or on the floor, so-called "amendments" are slapped in and the bills are brought up for final passage. These amendments often make wholesale changes to the original bill. A vote is taken with very little opportunity for rank-and-file members, let alone the public, to know what the new version of those bills contains.

And that process came back to bite the General Assembly in a big way on the pay raise. While the pay raise has brought public focus on the legislative process,  this has been going on in Harrisburg for quite some time. I complained about it ten years ago regarding the budget, and again nine years ago concerning passage of the electric deregulation bill. More recently, I complained when the process was used for the state takeover of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, and other issues.

Twice, I was involved in lawsuits over this. In 1995, I joined Common Cause in support of its successful challenge to the enactment of the state General Fund Budget. In 1998, I went to court to challenge the Electric Deregulation Act that passed in 1996.

In all honesty, it was difficult to generate much public or media interest in the problem at that time.

But now, I believe public attention to the way the pay raise was enacted has created a window of opportunity for us to change the way we do business.

Here are the specifics. In addition to the provisions that I already mentioned, which would require a bill to be on the calendar for at least 72 hours in its final form, and to allow a relatively small group of members to call for a hearing, these are the other provisions we are proposing to prevent last minute amendments: