HOUSE IN BATTLE OVER FAST-TRACKING.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

The 3,500-page document popped up on House Web sites sometime after midnight on Nov. 20.

By the time lawmakers arrived at their offices that morning, they found they had only a few hours to make sense of the jumbled mass of scanned computer pages with handwritten notes in the margin that would direct $388.4 billion of federal spending in the coming year.

Only after the yeas and nays were recorded about 2 p.m. did anyone notice the provision buried deep inside the tome: Certain politicians would be allowed to examine any American's tax return. On Monday, House lawmakers were hauled back to Washington for an unusual recess session to fix their mistake.

``We wrote a bill that's so bad even the Republicans say we need to come back and change it,'' fumed Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks.

``The fact is, we didn't even save any time. It serves all of us right for this rubber-stamp-and-leave-town policy, which is just the wrong way to do business.''

Sherman is one of nine Southern California lawmakers, all Democrats, backing an effort to ensure that House members have at least three days to read bills before voting on them. More and more, they charge, Republicans rush votes on serious issues like trade, taxes, Medicare and other policies without time for analysis.

On paper, at least, House members already have a three-day wait before voting on bills. The rule, however, is rarely enforced. GOP leaders can bypass the decree any time the Rules Committee, chaired by Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora, requests it.

According to the office of Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., rush-job votes happened at least 44 times in the past two years. Baird's proposal, signed by 143 lawmakers, would require the approval of two-thirds of House members to speed up any vote.

``I think this is a great idea,'' said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington D.C-based conservative tax watchdog group. ``The most bipartisan thing on Capitol Hill is spending money.''

Passing bills quickly, he added, ``does not allow members to have sufficient time to read the bills and offer amendments, in particular amendments to reduce or eliminate spending. And you also get bills that allow the Appropriations Committee chairmen to look at your tax returns.''

Yet, while Republicans are bearing the brunt of current criticisms, they say Democrats created the art of pushing bills through the process without examination.

When his party was in the minority, Dreier himself charged that Democrats too often waived the three-day layover period between the time that a panel reported a bill and when it was brought to the floor for a vote.

``This is especially important because, over the past 20 years, the average bill was quadrupled in size. Increasingly, members are forced to vote on complicated legislation they have never seen,'' Dreier complained in a 1993 Roll Call article.

Dreier's spokeswoman Jo Maney said her boss' views have not changed. He still supports allowing three days to read legislation but, she said, ``sometimes it does have to be waived for scheduling reasons.''

Lisa Friedman, [phone]

lisa.friedman(at)langnews.com