Fueled by the polls showing that Congress’s reputation has fallen to its lowest level since they’ve been taking polls, at Roll Call Jason Grumet reports that the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform has proposed some ways to reform Congress:
For instance, the House and Senate should schedule synchronized five-day workweeks in Washington, with three weeks in session followed by a one-week recess. Lawmakers spend far too much time in (and traveling to and from) their districts, and not enough time in Washington getting to know one another and mastering their key committees’ subject areas. It is inconceivable that we seek to govern our diverse and complex nation principally on Wednesdays. As unseemly as the mid-January shutdown was, senators said it forced meaningful private talks between Republicans and Democrats — something that should happen in advance of future crises.
Both chambers should continue the House’s recent practice of allowing committees to work every morning without the interruption of floor business and votes. Congressional committees are the engines of our democracy. Empowering them — and, by implication, reducing the power of leadership — would go a long way toward improving the legislative process. Substantive legislation should not reach the House or Senate floor without benefit of committee deliberations. Legislation with broad committee support should expect to receive floor consideration, and members should have a minimum of three days to study these bills. Finally, full-fledged conference committees should resolve differences between House and Senate versions of important legislation.
Dream no small dreams. In my opinion much more extreme measures are called for. Congress needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, not just into the 1980s which is where the reforms proposed would put it, but all the way into the 21st century. Here are some of the things that I would do to reform Congress, amending the Constitution as required:
- Congressmen should be required to reside in the districts they serve.
- The place where you sleep 50% or more of the time should be defined as one’s official residence.
- Teleconferencing should be adopted as the official way for the Congress to perform its duties.
- No Congressman should receive a pension of any kind for services in Congress.
- If Congressmen require staffs of any kind beyond one assistant/clerk/secretary, they should pay for them themselves.
- All lobbying activities should take place within Congressmen’s districts.
That would be a start.
Lets throw in single subject bills written at the high school level, mandatory placement of all assets in blind trusts and they have to fly economy class (or in a C-130 if flying military).
I’d support all of those. Also, no foreign travel during their terms of office.
Some good and some awful ideas here. If you are just angry at them and want to punish them, this is the way to go. Most of the time away from Congress is spent raising money for re-election. Either set limits on the amount of money they may raise or just have the govt finance it.
Keep the first two and the last. These guys simply can’t know everything they need to know about everything they vote on. They need staff to help. This should be a real job. Change the pension rules if you want, but if you do this for 30 years, there should be a pension. It should be proportional to what other civil service workers would get. Absent this, you guarantee only rich people run for Congress.
I teleconference a lot. When it is important, we meet in person. You really need the in person meetings to develop a working bond. (Maybe this is because I am old. Maybe the next generation can do this better, but I doubt it.)
Don’t really get no foreign travel. Sure, it can be abused, but sometimes people need to see what is going on elsewhere.
Steve
I have no objection to Congress’s expanding its research staffs. Any Congressman should be able to call on those staffs for info. I see no reason other than politics and status for a Congressman to have a large personal staff. One of the reasons Congressmen presently have large staffs is that they’re never in their districts. Also, the districts should be smaller and there should be many more of them, at least twice as many.
No one should be in the Congress for 30 years. If you don’t like that, what about term limits?
Except for the fifth dot point, who could disagree? Perhaps let the teleconferencing activity sort itself out given the domicile constraints. Steve makes a valid point on periodic face to face.
Nice list. Of course, I’m sitting here waiting for Godot to stroll around the corner…………
If periodic face-to-face meeting are beneficial, aren’t they beneficial with constituents as well? We cannot have a Congress that spends 100% of its time in Washington and 100% of its time in the districts. Those two are in conflict.
Staying in Washington 100% of the time lowers the transaction costs for lobbyists, large companies, and rich individuals. I agree that those are corrupting influences on our politics but the way to deal with them is along the lines I’ve suggested rather than impossible to enforce bans.
Increasing the number of districts is consistent with that approach, too. It increases the costs for lobbyists, corporations, and rich individuals.
I also think that we need to deal with both the supply and demand sides of that equation but that’s a subject for another post.
Setting term limits is OK with me, but that is a separate issue. If we are not going to do that, then they need pensions (really a 401k like everyone else). If you ever meet with a Congressman, they will often have their staff available for teleconferencing if it is a technical discussion. I just oddest see how they work w/o staff available at both home and in DC. They should have reasonable limits, but if they have none then they need to hire them, and then money becomes even more important than it is presently. Agree with more districts.
Yes, they need to see their folks back home, that is a good point, but if we are honest they mostly come back home for fundraising as far as I can see. Yes, you can get in to see them, but much easier if you come with a check(s). Set defined work times and defined times at home for everyone and fix the fundraising issue and I think you have a better solution. That, plus no meeting with lobbyists in DC, only in their district. I like that one. Don really think it changes much since the lobbyists have lots of money to spend, and really, hotels in Oshkosh are going to be cheaper than in DC methinks.
Steve
Well, the members of Congress would. But they’d like it better than my alternative proposal which is that Congress be treated sort of like jurors—when Congress was in session they could be put up in barracks, sequestered, and chaperoned.
I’d be happy with just term limits.
Well, yeah, Congress would disagree.
I do entire deals where I don’t meet with lawyers, accts etc except by phone, email ……until closing. It’s mechanical.
But principals? No way. Personal relationships matter.
Totally agree. There are a lot of technical people I never meet except by phone or Skype. The important people? In person. Important meetings with lots of stuff important to me? In person. Meetings I have to attend but don’t want to? On the phone, and do emails at the same time.
Steve
The members of Congress aren’t remotely principals. The Congressional leadership are.
It doesn’t make the least bit of difference whether Mike Quigley (my Congressman) knows Texas’s Joe Barton or not. Cross-aisle relationships of any kind have become increasingly rare. I sincerely doubt that Nancy Pelosi has ever played host to Paul Ryan in her home or vice versa.
I think it would be better if they did really get to know each other but that’s so 20th century. Under the circumstances it’s not an argument for staying in Washington 100% of the time.