Changes I think need to be made to how Congress works

[gandalf23]

This is nowhere near complete, but here are some of the things that I think we need to change in how congress works, in no specific order for now:

* When a bill is up for voting in either House of Congress, the full text should be made available to the public, and the Congressmen, for 72 hours before voting on that bill is allowed. This is to allow the congressmen to be able to actually read the bill they are planing on voting on, and to give the public time to look it over and let our representatives know what we think about the bill. Obviously there needs to be exceptions, but I'm fairly certain that 90% or more of all the stuff they do can wait three days. I'd prefer a 10 day waiting period to let them cool down, but I'd settle for three days.
* We need to go back to the Senators being appointed by the state they represent. Originally the Senators represented the States and the House represented the People. Now, since we vote for both, both houses of Congress represent the people. So why do we have two houses then? Either get rid of one, which I think is not a good idea, or go back to making the Senators represent the interests of their state. Right now, who represents the 50 states? No one, that’s who. And that is not right.
* The House of Representatives should have a term limit of 8 years, just like the president. Senators, being appointed by the State, will continue to have no term limits.
* All bills will include in their text who added which earmarks. Government should be transparent as much as possible, and this would go a long way towards doing that.
* No more voting by affirmation, or whatever it’s called (where they listen to how many Ayes or Nays there are and decide who won, but do not actually count the votes on each side). All votes should be recorded as to who voted what. Again, we the people need to know what is going on and who is doing what.
* Within two weeks the itinerary and schedule book of the various congressmen needs to be published. If you’re accepting golf games from some industry, or eating with a delegation of businessmen, we need to know that. If you're jetting off on a "fact finding" taxpayer paid shopping trip every three weeks we need to know that, too. For security reasons we don’t need to know now, and waiting two weeks should alleviate potential security problems.
* New regulations and laws expire after 10 years automatically (sunset). If it’s a good law or regulation then congress should have no problem voting on it for another 10 years, but if it sucks, well, then we only have 10 years of a sucky law or regulation at most. 10 years lets the law last into the next administration.
* When a member of either house of congress decides to run for another elected office, he, or she, needs to resign form the position they now fill the day he, or she, declares that he’ll be running for another position. We have hired these people to do a job, and if they decide they want another job that is fine, this is America after all and we're all about getting a New Job with better responsibilities and pay and benefits, but don't expect to be able to work on your resume and entertain new prospective employers, and to not do your current job while on the clock. Either do the job you were hired to do or leave. I have no problem with a state choosing to let the congressperson appoint a stand in for the remaining time until the next election.

I realize that there is no way any of these changes will ever be implemented, but it sure seems to me like it'd be a Good Thing if they were.

[Fivetoes]

When I saw your thread the first thing that came to mind was to repeal the seventeenth amendment for the reasons you stated.

[mekender]

your first point already is in place it is the http://thomas.loc.gov/ website

2nd point... i agree but it will never happen

3rd point... works for me, but i would want term limits on senators too

the rest... im all for

[The Quiet Man]

Originally the Senators represented the States and the House represented the People. Now, since we vote for both, both houses of Congress represent the people.

Oh brother.....if that were only true! These assclowns represent themselves and whatever special interest group has their attention at the time. I wonder if any of them even understands the concept of representing the people.

[workinwifdakids]

As an adjunct professor of political science, I have to say all of your points were really spot on!

I think your proposal most likely to pass would be a 10-day waiting period on all legislation given to the floor. Second most likely to pass would be the sunset provision that all law expires without being reauthorized. Honestly, though, I would actually call for reauthorization (or sunset) every four years. That's two House terms, one Presidential term, and 2/3 of a Senate term. Essentially, the way these clowns vote would become much clearer.

[Scott Free]

Forgive me for being redundant but I've mentioned this on the other forum and this seems an opportune time to refresh a few memories. Would anyone be for eliminating an objectively unconstitutional act that the Congress commits on a regular basis? To wit, I give you the U.S. Congress' "Conference Committee" (article from Wikipedia):

United States Congress Conference committee

A conference committee is a committee of the Congress appointed by the House of Representatives and Senate to resolve disagreements on a particular bill. The conference committee is usually composed of the senior Members of the standing committees of each House that originally considered the legislation.

Conference committees operate after the House and the Senate have passed different versions of a bill. Conference committees exist to negotiate a compromise bill that both houses can accept. Both houses of Congress must eventually pass the identical legislation for the bill to become law. (See U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7.) The two houses can reach that identical product through the process of amendments between Houses, where the House passes the Senate bill with a House amendment, or vice versa, but this process can be cumbersome. Thus most major bills become law through using a conference committee. (See Sen. Procedure, 449.)

After one house passes a bill, the second house will often pass the same bill, with an amendment representing the second house’s work product. The second house will then send a message between houses to the first house, asking the first house to concur with the second house’s amendment. If the first House does not like the second house’s amendment, then the first house can disagree with the amendment of the second house, request a conference, appoint conferees, and send a message to that effect to the second house. The second house then insists on its amendment, agrees to a conference, and appoints conferees.

...

Conference committees can be extremely contentious, particularly if the Houses are controlled by different parties. House rules require that one conference meeting be open to the public, unless the House, in open session, votes that a meeting will be closed to the public. But apart from this one open meeting, conference committees usually meet in private, and are dominated by the Chairs of the House and Senate Committees.

House and Senate rules forbid Conferees from inserting in their report matter not committed to them by either House. (See House Rule XXII, Senate Rule XXVIII.) But conference committees sometimes do introduce new matter.

(All emphasis mine.)

Note, please what is at issue here:

1) By allowing a conference committee, we're helping to ease the burden of the people actively working -- deliberately or not -- to undermine our nation. Oh, that's a grand idea. By all means, let's make it easier for the socialists! It'd be like the Russkies giving the Nazis more time to "adapt to the environment" around Moscow in '43.

I mean, let's be fair. There's nothing like giving overpaid, politically ambitious miscreants with delusions of godhood MORE time to figure out where they should allocate more pork, regulate our lives, and tear down the fabric of our society. Lord knows, there just isn't enough hours in the day...

Oh, yes, I know that they work so hard -- for themselves, for their special interests and their own social engineering projects -- but is it too freakin' much to demand that things be done as the Constitution mandates that they be done? I'm perfectly willing to admit that, as a de facto practice, the Senate may "effectively" originate a bill (i.e., "amend" a bill from the House, as they just did with the god-damned bailout bill.) But where in the Origination Clause of the Constitution is a "conference committee" authorized?

Oh, the Congress authorized it? My, how convenient. That would be fine by me -- if the Congress could also draft and pass Constitutional amendments without the consent of the People...

But what could possibly be wrong with a conference committee in concept? It just makes life easier for the Congress. There's nothing to be worried about. After all, it doesn't usurp any authority, right?

Wrong.

2) But apart from this one open meeting, conference committees usually meet in private, and are dominated by the Chairs of the House and Senate Committees.

I beg your pardon but aren't we Americans supposed to have an open gummint? Could this possibly be the reason that bills are supposed to originate and be debated upon the floor of the Congress -- so that our "representatives" are held accountable? Hmmm?

Note that they don't even have to have one open conference meeting. Aren't we allegedly famous for detesting "smoke-filled back rooms" where political deals are done? This doesn't sound "open" to me whatsoever -- and I'd put serious coin down on the notion that Mssrs. Madison, Jefferson, Adams and the rest of The Boys would have a proverbial cow about this one. I'd also wager that they didn't want to make it easy for a cabal of interests to sidestep the Constitution.

3) But conference committees sometimes do introduce new matter.

Excuse me, but doesn't this freakin' circumvent the entire freakin' consti-freaking-tutional process of originating a bill on the floor of the Congress?!!!?

At this point, I've got "conference committeemen" -- which ones? I dunno. Their meetings are "private" and no one's keeping score on who votes for what -- that are "introducing 'new' matter" (i.e., legislation that the committemen have drafted that allegedly is "authorized" by their fellow congressmen in their respective houses) "making deals" in a "private" smoke-filled back room in Congress.

Sounds lovely -- and oh-so above board, wouldn't you say? I mean, we do trust our representatives, don't we? After all, they know what's best for us -- just ask any one of them.

4) And because the lawful, open Constitutional process is "cumbersome", most major bills become law through using a conference committee.

And we live in a republic? Pardon me -- since when?