At The Hill Tom Daschle and Trent Lott, two names all but certain to roil partisans of either party, hold forth on their opinions for getting the Congress off their duffs:
First, Congress should codify its recent tendency toward approving biennial budgets, including two-year budget resolutions and appropriations bills. The traditional annual budgeting process leaves the bulk of members out of decision-making, is disconnected from the authorization process, and produces short-sighted policymaking. Additionally, moving to a two-year cycle would provide more time for the Appropriations committees to conduct vital oversight of programs within their jurisdictions.
Second, the Senate filibuster has been the subject of much debate and maligning over the years. We support maintaining the current 60-vote threshold for legislation to preserve the Senate’s unique, invaluable role as the body that protects the rights of the minority. At the same time, CPR recommended eliminating the ability to filibuster motions to move to consideration of legislation. The joint committee should apply this principle to the appropriations process.
Third, in exchange for limiting debate on the motion to proceed, we urged that each side of the aisle be accorded a minimum number of amendments to each piece of legislation. Both the House and Senate should adopt this provision for appropriations.
Their first suggestion is probably unconstitutional and would definitely require the repeal of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Something depends on whether you can split the budget from appropriations. Appropriations are constitutionally required to be annual. I believe that’s why we have the byzantine fund accounting for programs like Social Security and Medicare.
The use and misuse of the filibuster is a sign of the grave difference of opinion in the Congress. It’s not the cause of it.
And according a minimum number of amendments to each party is a) fantasizing and b) would make our laws even more opaque than they already are.
Try again. Keep in mind that elections are not IQ tests nor are they indicators of an understanding of present law.
While we’re fantasizing my suggestions would be to select the Speaker of the House by lot from the membership of the House of both parties, limit the power of the Congressional leadership, or, preferably, both.
It would be a good idea to rebuild Congress’ research and staffing to what they were before think tanks started doing our politicians’ thinking for them. Giving committees more time for investigation won’t do any good when the members just rubber stamp something out of Brookings or ALEC to save time.
Also, go back to secret committee votes. Lobbyists can’t exercise undue influence when they don’t know who did what.
Moving to a 50 week per year, 5 days a week session might be a step too far. However, if a quorum exists, the only exit has a press pool/CSPAN camera trained on it, thermostat set to 80 degrees (gotta be green) and the days calendar be cleared by up or down votes on each item. Other than that, the parties might want to have think about what party discpline/loyalty means
Remember Will Rogers’s wisecrack: the difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t become worse when Congress is in session. I’m not sure that a 50 week year/5 day a week work schedule would be an improvement.
I have some ideas, but what’s the point? Giving Congress reform suggestions is like giving a drunk advice on how to moderate their consumption.