Bill Reading Assignment
You are to read the two articles found in this post and comment with the following information:
1) Explain the issue
2) Is this more an issue between Democrats and Republicans or between the majority and minority party? Explain your answer.
3) Explain why the current reading procedures should not be changed. Please note, I don't want your personal opinion, I just want you to argue this position.
4) Explain why the current reading procedures should be changed. Please note, I don't want your personal opinion, I just want you to argue this position.
The Reading Hour in the House
By Bernie Becker
July 9, 2009, 3:27 pm
NY Times
The Democratic and Republican leaderships in the House used the health care debate to revive an old argument this week – whether legislation gets debated vigorously enough before heading to a vote.
Representative John Boehner, the House minority leader, has taken a pledge, issued by a conservative group, to personally read every page of the upcoming health care legislation – and urged his colleagues to do the same. Let Freedom Ring, the Delaware-based advocacy group that issued the challenge to every member of Congress, has also asked that the bill be posted online for 72 hours before it comes to a vote.
On separate occasions this week, Democratic leaders in the House scoffed at the pledge, saying plenty of time will be given to consider the bill and that members regularly don’t read every word of a bill before casting their vote.
Historically, the minority party in the House – be it Republicans or Democrats – have railed that they are not given enough time to consider legislation before it comes to the floor.
As the House was approaching a vote on the climate and energy bill in late June, Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, took to the floor and read pages of amendments to the bill added just hours earlier, saying afterward “there are times when the majority just does such outrageous things that you have to find a way to make your point to the American people.”
The last time they were in the minority, Democrats often complained that Republicans, led by then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay, would quickly ram bills through the House.
Now back in the majority, House Democrats seem to have little sympathy for their colleagues across the aisle.
On Tuesday, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer laughed after being asked by a reporter about the health care pledge. (A spokesman said that Mr. Boehner used that hook to distribute the pledge to his Republican colleagues.)
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” said Mr. Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, who added that members read large portions of bills themselves and have staff members who tackle the whole bill.
At her weekly news conference on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, had a similar reaction when asked if she would follow Mr. Boehner’s lead and take the pledge herself.
“Is this a pledge that is in keeping with his having read all of the bills that he’s ever voted for?”
Mrs. Pelosi, a California Democrat, asked.” I don’t know what his pledge is, but we pledge to have a full process with ample time for the legislation to be wellknown to the public. Every person in America is an expert on his or her health care. And they’re all very curious about what will be there.”
Mr. Boehner fired back at his own Thursday news conference, saying that Democrats won’t want the public to read the health care legislation once it is drafted.
“They might find out how ridiculous it is,” he said.
________________________________________________________
Lawmakers, read the bills before you vote
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / July 12, 2009
The Boston Globe
SAY, DID you hear the one about the congressman who was asked to do his job? Talk about funny - this will crack you up!
Well, maybe it won’t. But Steny Hoyer thought it was hilarious.
Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, is the majority leader in the House of Representatives. At a news conference last week, he was talking about the healthcare overhaul being drafted on Capitol Hill, and a reporter asked whether he would support a pledge committing members of Congress to read the bill before voting on it, and to make the full text of the legislation available to the public online for 72 hours before the vote takes place.
That, reported CNSNews, gave Hoyer the giggles: The majority leader “found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. ‘I’m laughing because . . . I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,’ he said.’’
Then came one of those classic Washington gaffes that Michael Kinsley famously defined as “when a politician tells the truth.’’ Hoyer conceded that if lawmakers had to carefully study the bill ahead of time, they would never vote for it. “If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,’’ he said. The majority leader was declaring, in other words, that it is more important for Congress to pass the bill than to understand it.
“Transparency’’ is a popular buzzword in good-government circles, and politicians are forever promising to transact the people’s business in the sunshine. But as Hoyer’s mirth suggests, when it comes to lawmaking, transparency is a joke. Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages.
A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House.
And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:
“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’’
Ramming legislation through Congress so quickly that neither lawmakers nor voters have time to read and digest it is a bipartisan crime; Republicans have been as guilty of it as Democrats.
The 341-page Patriot Act, to mention just one notorious example, was introduced in the Republican-controlled House on Oct. 23, 2001, brought to a vote on Oct. 24, adopted by the Democratic-controlled Senate on Oct. 25, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26.
Such efficiency is no virtue when it comes to lawmaking, which is why every member of Congress should be pressed to sign the pledge Hoyer was asked about. It is sponsored by a grass-roots conservative group, Let Freedom Ring, and is readily accessible online. Equally worthy of support is ReadTheBill.org, which is backed by a coalition of liberal organizations. Still another push comes from the libertarian group Downsize DC, which urges Congress to pass its proposed Read The Bills Act.
Senators and representatives who vote on bills they haven’t read and don’t understand betray their constituents’ trust. It is no excuse to say that Congress would get much less done if every member took the time to read every bill. Fewer and shorter laws more carefully thought through would be a vast improvement over today’s massive bills, which are assembled in the dark and enacted in haste. Steny Hoyer chortles at the thought of asking members of Congress to do their job properly. It’s up to voters to wipe the grin off his face.
Taylor Estes
ReplyDeleteI strongly support the idea of having each member of congress read an entire bill before it is passed, no matter how long that bill may be. If the writer can take the time to write it, congressmen can take the time to read it. I think this country would run much more smoothly on bills passed that were thoroughly understood,even if that meant fewer laws were being passed. In this case less may be more.
The issue is about whether or not legislation is debated enough before it is put to a vote, whether or not congressmen and women should have to read the entire bill before it is put to a vote and if the bill should be made public (online) for 72 hours before it can be put to a vote. This is more of an issue between majority and minority parties. The house majority (whether it be Democrat or Republican) wants to use the advantage of having the majority to pass legislation that their voters agree with as fast as they can, on the other hand, the house minority wants to slow down the passing of legislation as much as they can, hoping that in the next election hey will gain the majority of seats in the house. Also while either the Democratic or Republican Party is the minority, they would both like to believe that if the public was able to read the bill themselves that they would not support it. In the public there are two sides to this issue, some say that the current reading procedures should not be changed because if every member congress read every word of the bill nothing would get done. Some of the bills are over 1100 pages long and amendments are made to the bill just hours before it is put to a vote, it would be nearly impossible for the members of congress to read it in the time that they have. However, others say that the current reading procedures should be changed because congress should fully understand a bill before they vote on it. If they do not have enough time to read the bill then there should be more time allotted for the legislation to be discussed and debated. Major legislation should be based on educated choices, not politics, and actually reading the bills is a huge step in this direction.
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about the issue for whether or not congress should be required to read a bill fully before taking a vote on it rather than just reading the major points to it and just solemly worry about passing the bill. it is more of an issue between the majority and minority parties because the majority of congress isnt reading the full text( which can be very long, as long as 1100 pages sometimes) where as the minority is saying, lets take the extra time to actually read the whole bill and understand it before we sign something into law without knowing it 100 percent. The minority also feels that the bill should be posted online to the public at least 72 hours in advance so they realize and understand everything that the bill consists of and that there is no hidden information and that everything is straight up. The current reading procedure should not be changed becasue it would take ALOT of extra time that congress doesnt exactly have to take the time to read every point on these bills. Some consist of over 1100 pages. Fewer bills would get passed and it would take alot more time than they actually have to do this. They are still getting the keys points of the bill by skimming through the major points so why should they take so much more time reading every last page when they can use that time to try and better other things and pass other bills into law. The current procedure should be changed because why put something into law when you dont know everything that is said in it. Congress needs to fully understand what is going on and what every bill consists of before being voted on because they could very easily miss something. Its true that it would take alot of extra time but i believe it is well worth it for everyone, even the public to have access to the full content of the bill before being voted on. People should take the time to understand everything and really understand whats going on, even if less things get passed or voted on, at least you know EXACTLY what your voting on.
ReplyDeleteIn these articles the issue of whether representatives should review bills more thoroughly is discussed. Although house republicans have a valid point, this issue appears to be between democrats and republicans rather than the majority and minority parties. It seems that republicans are simply using this issue to make the democrats look foolish as well as the bill. However, the republicans are justified in requesting that house democrats read this bill personally before voting. The current reading procedures should not be altered for the reason that if representatives spent an extended period of time on one issue then equally important issues may be neglected. On the other hand, current reading procedures should be changed because each bill has an immense amount of provisions that dramatically effects society as well as indiviuals. Therefore, it is imperative that government officials understand all the details of the bill being proposed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue being talked about in these articles is about whether every member of Congress should have to read an entire bill before it is voted on and whether or not it should be made public and posted on the internet for the voters to see for 72 hours before it is voted on. This is more of an issue between the majority and minority parties.The majority of the house,Democrat or Republican, wants to use being the majority to their advantage to pass bills faster while the minority of the house wants to slow things down in hopes of being the majority come the next election. The minority also feels that the bill should be posted online for at least 72 hours so the public can read and fully understand the bill and there will be a lesser chance that the bill will be supported. The current reading procedure should not be changed because it would take a ton of time to read every last word on every page of a bill. Some bills consist of over 1100 pages. Less bills would get passed by doing this. It would be almost impossible to read all of this in the time that Congress has before they go to vote on it. The current reading procedure should be changed because Congress should fully understand what the are going to be voting on before they vote on it. If they do not have enough time to read the entire bill, they should be given more time to discuss and debate it. It doesn't matter if less bills get passed as long as you are aware of what all the bill includes in it. Sometimes less is better.
ReplyDeleteThis article was about the issue of whether or not bills should be read and debated thoroughly by congressmen before taking a vote and whether or not a bill should be put online for the public to read for 72 hours prior to the vote. This issue is more between the majority and minority parties.This is because when either party(Republicans or Democrats) are the majority,they are not worried about reading entire bills, partly because they are at an advantage by having more members in their party.They want to get as many bills as possible passed. But the minority party wants things to move slower and wants time to read through an entire bill before coming up with a decision. They want to use the slowing of passed bills to their advantage, helping them win the majority in the future. The minorities want more time and a bigger voice in terms of passing bills. Current reading procedures are best in the eyes of many people because more bills are being passed and we are accomplishing a lot more.Reading bills word for word takes too much time out of busy congressmen and women's day. It is much more important to get bills passed then to completely understand them. In many other citizen's eyes, the current reading procedures should be changed. Congress needs more time to read and analyze a bill. They need to discuss and debate the pros and cons before it is passed or that bill is not fully prepared to help the American people.Less may be completed and there may not be a wide variety of bills passed, but we need to 100% understand what we are voting on or what is the point? We shouldn't rush legislation, but take the time to read it thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteI definitley support this article. That says every congress men must read the ENTIRE bill!!! It makes no sense to just skim.. You cant get the whole point that way. This country wouldn't need as many laws if it had a few WELL read and completely understood laws rather than laws that have not even been fully read and understood.
ReplyDeleteThe issue within the articles is whether legislation is debated vigorously enough before it is sent away for a vote. This is more of a debate between a majority and a minority. One reason is that the house majority wants to use the majority to pass the vote as fast as they can while the minority wants to slow it down with the hope that they can win the next election with the majority seats. The reading process should not be changed because nothing would get done if the delegates read every word of each document going to passed through. Especially when some documents are over 1100 pages long. However, it should be changed because to fully understand the document it must be read completely. I believe it should be changed for the main reason of better understanding of the law before it is made public (within 72 hours).
ReplyDeleteThe issue presented in both of these articles is whether or not congress members should have to read every bill before voting on it in order to understand the bill completely. The issue is also of whether or not bills should be open to the public online 72 hours before the bill is voted on. This issue is between the majority and the minority. the present Republican minority bellieves that all senators should take a pledge to read every bill. This is so they will be fully aware of what they are voting on. The present Democratic majority thinks this to be a joke and that reading the whole bill will take up too much time. The minority in past years, whether it be Republican or Democrat, both believe they don't have enough time to look over the bills. The majority usually does not want to waste time reading the whole thing, whether the majority be Republican or Democrtaic. Current reading procedures should not be changed because if every senator read every bill, passing laws would move at a very slow pace. Changes are being made to bills being voted on hourse beforehand. For example, the climate and energy bill was amended hourse before the voting took place. If the pledge did take place, senators who hadn't read the bill wouldn't vote and not as mant votes would be cast. The current reading procedures should change because senators should fully understand the bill they voting for or against. Yes there would not be as many bills passed in such little time but the bills that were passed would be better because each senator would know what they were voting for.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is the House and Senate being required to read the bill in full before voting on them. I believe that this is more an issue between majority and minority parties because the majority is only reading parts of the bills whereas the minority is wanting to read it all. The current reading procedures shouldn't change because if they do and then nothing would get down because they would be reading one 1,000 page bill for a while. The current reading procedures should be changed because the House and Senate would be more aware and knowledgable on what they are voting on.
ReplyDeleteThese articles are asking the question " Should congress read the full extend of the bills they pass?" This is an issue between the majority and the minority because the majority of congress is not reading the full contents of the bill being brought forth wile the minority want to read the extent of the bill and understand whats going to happen if the goes through. Also the minority feel that the public should at least know what congress in planning on doing in advance. The current procedures should not be changed because it would take far to long to read every single word the very long bills that are put in front of the. Also many many people who would read the bill online would not take the time to read the full document.However it should be changed because it is important for the american people to at least get a glimpse at what's going on in congress. Also congress should be fully aware of what they are putting into effect.
ReplyDeleteThe issue presented here is if the whole legislating body of Congress should or shouldn't be made to read a bill over completely before voting on it. I believe this issue is with the majority and minority parties. The majority, since they're the primary writers of the bills, will know what they need from the bills and will not want to read it in it's entirety to find oversights. The minority party does not feel that it's given enough time to read over the bills, and believe that it should be read so oversights or "absurdity" is added in the bill. It's clearly more issue with the majority and minority than political parties. The procedure shouldn't be changed because it simply would take too much time to read the bill throughly because the Congress is very busy throughout the week. Conferences, hearings, public events, and other things throughout the week gives the Congress legislating body little time to look over bills. Lengthly bills wouldn't be passed for weeks on end that are crucial to the country's current state. Laws need to be passed quickly so they can take effect and assist our country currently with a faltering economy. On the flip side the procedure should be changed because even though the laws will be passed at a slower rate, it will result in quality legislature. Legislature that won't need to be fixed or replaced due to the inconsistencies with the previous out of date law with in a few years. It will also cut out suspicious last minute changes being added to the bill.
ReplyDeleteThe issue being debated is whether every member of congress should read each bill in its entirety before voting on it. A pledge to do just that is going around. The pledge also suggests placing a copy of the bill on the internet for 72 hours so the public can be aware of its content. The House minority leader, Republican John Boehner, has taken this pledge and hopes others will follow. The majority leader, Democrat Steny Hoyer, finds the idea amusing, suggesting congressmen don't have the time. This is an ongoing issue between the majority and minority parties. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans are the majority, the minority party always complains of feeling rushed to pass a bill they don't completely understand. A bill may be finished or revised and then voted on just hours later, even though the bill may be a thousand pages long or more. When the Democrats were the minority they often complained of this problem but now laugh when Republicans speak out about it. On one hand, one may argue not to change the current reading procedures. There are tons of bills that go through legislation everyday and the process can still take a while, especially for the less important issues, because bills normally go through revision after revision before something can be decided upon. If every member of congress took the time to read every word the process would be lengthened and very few decisions would be made. Also, if staff members read through the bill instead, then any major issues that the congressmen happened to miss could be brought to light and that could be the main focus. The congressmen read enough to get the idea themselves, anyway. On the other hand, one could argue to change the reading procedures. If a bill is pushed through within a few hours not even the staff members would have the time to read the whole thing. Also, no matter what one is voting on, he/she should never vote without the proper facts and research that keeps them informed. A citizen wouldn't vote on the president without knowing what each candidate stood for. A congressman should not vote on a bill without knowing what it is about. Without reading the entire thing one could miss a crucial piece that may be a deal breaker. Citizens elect members of the House because they trust them to make informed decisions that will help the public. If one of those members votes without complete knowledge, they are violating the trust that the public has given them to do the best job they can. Whether one is for or against the pledge, the decision should be based on how to keep the government operating at its best and what is best for the citizens of this nation.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in the article above is if the legislation spends enough time reading and/or debating a bill before it is voted upon. This is more of an issue for the majority and minority parties’ vs. the Republicans and Democrats. The minority party believes that they are not granted enough time and that the majority is running bills through the house at a fast pace. The minority also would like to place the bill online 72 hours before it is voted on. The Majority party thinks there is nothing wrong with the current system used and want bills to run through the house at a faster pace vs. waiting. The current reading procedures should not be changed because reading everything word for word will get nothing accomplished in time. (some of the bills could be 1100 pages long.) As for others, they think that they should change the reading procedure and slow things down so that they have more time to fully understand the bill by reading, discussing and debating the bill before voting upon them. Understanding the bill and educating the public is essential and taking the time to slow down is a step towards the right direction.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in these articles is whether Congress should take the time to read each bill thoroughly and understand it. The issue is between the majority and the minorty party because each party forgets what it was like when the roles were reversed. When they switch roles they only care that they are now the majority (if they are) and they do niot care about the minority. When there is majority whichever party it is, they think they rule and they do not think about the minority. They forget they were once the minority and how they felt when they were treated as if their opinion did not matter. The current reading procedure shouldn't be changed because some of the proposed bills are long and the congressmen would need more time to read and understand thew bills. If each bill took more time then the time to read other bills would dwindle. There would not be a lot of bills being passed if the procedure changes, and so it should remain the same. The current reading procedure should be changed because this would give congressmen more time to read and understand the bills. Then the bills would be more acceptable and could be passed with confidence and knowledge, becasue congress would know exactly what they were voting for or against. The current procedure should be changed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is about whether the legislation does or does not get debated enough before heading to a vote. The issue goes on to question whether or not congressmen and women should have to read the entire bill before it goes to a final vote and that the bill should be posted publicly online for 72 hours before it is put to vote. This is without a doubt more of an issue between the majority and minority parties. The majority feel that since they are the majority, that the bill should just be passed as quickly as possible and most admit that they do not even read the entire bill.Some bills can be up to 1,100 pages in length. They are saying that passing the bill is more important than understanding the bill. The minority feel that understanding the bill is key. They want the extra time to read the entire bill to fully understand what they are voting on. The bill being posted online to the public 72 hours before aslo gives them the chance to understand the bill and its entirety.Some changes are made to the bill within minutes before it is handed to you and it does not give you ample time to read over the entire bill and rethink your thoughts. The current reading procedure should not be changed because most of the bills are very lengthy and congress simply doesnt have enough time to read every word on the bill. If bills were shorter and well thought through, congress would then be able to read the entire bill and in turn, fully understand what they are about to vote on. The current reading procedure should be changed because congress should know everything that is included in the bill. It is very easy to skim over something and miss key points that are important to the bill. It is time consuming, but worth it in the end to know 100 percent what you are about to put into law. It is beneficial to Congress but also to the people, to know exactly what each bill states.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in the two articles is if legislation is looked over or even read before voted on. I think that it is an issue between Republicans and Democrats as well as the majority and minority party. Republicans or Democrats are not giving legislators enough time to read over or consider bills before they are made to vote on whether it should be a law or not. This problem could be solved by giving them more time, making legislators read and understand the whole bill, or even condensing the length of bills so it takes less time to understand and read them. This is also an issue when it comes to the majority and minority party. It is legislator’s job to read, understand, and vote on bills to see if it is a law or not. If they are voting on bills that they are not reading then they are not doing their job. The current reading procedures should not be changed because if legislators had to read the entire bill, which can amount to any number of pages, then it would take forever. The current reading procedures should be changed because legislators are passing laws that they haven’t even went over, or read. So they are passing things that they do not know fully about and this makes me uncomfortable. A bill should become a law if it’s going to benefit our people in the best possible way.
ReplyDeleteThis article is talking about the problem that lawmakers in both parties are writing up bills and trying to pass them so fast that no one is reading the bills. This leads to the problem that no one in congress knows what is in the bills that they are passing. This issue is between the majority and minority parties because through history the majority party has always tried to force its legislation through congress. This is not just a fight between the Democrats and Republicans because there are also many other parties fighting for control of congress so they can pass the bills on their agenda as fast as they possibly can. Some believe that if the current policy of reading bills is changed then it would take so long to read the bill that nothing would get done in congress. The procedures for reading bills should be changed because the congressmen (men and women alike) are not taking the time to actually read the bills they are passing they are just signing them and leaving. When their job is to read the bills and based on what is in the bill and what the public which is who they serve believes. Should depend on whether or not they pass the bill.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is some congressmen think it is important to read the whole bill before passing it to become a law. Whereas others think it is not important and that it simply takes up too much time.I think this is more of a majority vs. minority issue. The majority of people don't read the whole bill when there are some who think it is appropriate and that do read the whole thing. In argument why they shouldn't read them is the fact that they are so long and tedious. They can be up to 1,100 pages per bill. It takes a lot of time to read them and they have so many to go through that it would be hard for them to read every single bill line by line, word for word. On the other side of the spectrum this issue should be changed because its a law and every aspect of it is very important. You cant fully understand something if you don't take the time and really read it. In a way not reading it is a little bit of laziness. The bills aren't going any where. They just need to take the extra time to read them so they know exactly what they are getting and make sure they understand every single aspect of the potential future law.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in this article is wether each member of the Congress should read the bill entirely before voting on it or wether they shouldn't read the whole bill and just focus on the key points of it. The pledge also suggests that the bill be posted online for 72 hours so that the public can be aware of the bill. John Boehner, the houses minority leader, has taken the pledge and hopes that his colleauges will follow it as well. The house Majority leader, Steny Hoyer, is ammused and laughs at the pledge that they are suggested to make. He says that if any lawmaker reads the entirety of the bill they would not vote for it. He declared that its more important to pass the bill rather than to understand it. I see the issues between minority and majority groups (Republicans or Democrats). The minority groups would rather take more time to issue a bill so that everyone knows and understands the bill. Where as the majority group doesn't want to waste time reading the hundreds or even thousands of pages of the bill. I don't believe the reading procedure should be changed. If everyone in the congress took the time to read the whole bill, it would be passed alot more slowly. Plus there would be less votes. For example the $787
ReplyDeletebillion “stimulus’’ bill in February was issued and congress only had 13-hours to read and understand its 1,100 pages. Now if the pledge was passed how many of those voters would have read the full 1,100 pages? None probably and if any, not many. Thus less people to vote for the bill. Though if the reading procedure was to change the bill might be passed slowly, but each and every person will understand the bill and know what they are actually voting for.
The issue discussed in the above articles is the issue of wether or not all Congessmen should read through an entire bill before the bill is voted on. This is more of a Democrat/Republican issue in the Congress, because it is the Republicans who believe that the bills should be read, and the Democrats do not think they should, or they say that they have people who read the bill for them. The current reading procedures should not be changed because it would end up taking lawmakers entirly too much time to pass a bill, seeing as some bills are 1,100 pages long ,and someone would always find something they didn't agree with and refuse to vote for the bill. The current reading procedure should be changed because it is a Congressman's responsibility to pass laws for the people, and if he doesn't read the law that he is passing and he doesnt understand the law that he is passing then he isn't doing the job that the people elected him to do, which is to pass the laws that he believes will benefit the people.
ReplyDeleteThe issue that is dealt with in the two articles is whether the bills that pass through Congress are being read thoroughly and whether each bill should be shown to the public before Congress votes on them. This is more an issue between the majority and minority parties because the majority party, whether it be Democrat or Republican, often has more power in Congress and most of the time can collectively agree with each other to get a bill passed quickly. Meanwhile, the minority party gets out voted and can hardly question the bills that pass through Congress before they become laws. The minority party can rarely out vote the majority party when they feel that a bill should be passed and become a law. The current reading procedures should not be changed because there would be fewer votes by Congress if they were forced to read every bill thoroughly. Plus, several amendments are lengthy, more than at least 100 pages. For instance, " the 1,100 page stimulus bill that called for $787 billion, or the 300 page amendment that was added to Waxman-Markey, the cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day that the bill was being voted on, or the 341-page Patriot Act." The current reading procedures should be changed because Congress tends to pass bills when they have not even read them all of the way through and do not understand them. The public would have access to each bill online for at least 72 hours, before Congress was to vote on it. The public could make comments on the bills and say whether they were for or against each bill.
ReplyDeleteThe issue that is put before us is whether or not congressmen should read every page of a bill given to them and whether or not politicians should sign a pledge saying that they will read every bill to the last page; And whether or not they should post the bill on the internet for the public to read, seventy two hours before it is voted on. The debate has been a tennis match between the majority and minority party in congress. Whoever is in power at the time speeds up passing bills and whoever is in the minority wants to slow things down. The issue with speeding things up and not reading every page is that politicians do not understand what is being handed to them and they are shoving it down our throats to pass because it is in favor of their party’s agenda. Politicians are often given only a handful of hours to read bills that are completed just hours before with amendments and changes. The problem is that they do not know what they are passing in its entirety. On the other hand slowing down the law passing chain would create problems such as not enough getting down in congress because too much time is being used on ready one thousand page bills just so they can fully understand the bill. Time is a valuable thing and a lot of time will be wasted if you enforce a rule that enforces politicians to read every bill before it gets voted on.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is whether the congressmen are reading the bill thoroughly and understanding the entire bill and whether they should leave it out to the public for 72 hours before the vote. This is mostly between minority and majority parties because the msjority party wants to get as many bills in and passed as they can in that year as well as doing what their party wants them to do. The minorities want to slow things down but are always getting out voted they want to know what they are voting for and understanding it entirly. They should not have to be changed because they could use up a lot of time on one very long bill when they could have already had 2 or 3 bills passed. They should have to read the bill because they need to know what they are voting for and if they read the bill it might change their opinion and vote differently.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in the articles is if legeslation is debated enough before being sent out to vote, if congress members should have to read every bill fully before voting on it, and if should be open to the public for 72 hours it is voted on. This issue is between the majority and the minority. The Republican minority leader pledged to read all bills fully. The Democatic majority leader says the idea is absurd; Congress is too busy. When the Democrats were minority they often complained of the same issue. The Current proceedings should not be changed, because when Congres does not read the bill fully, the bills are passed through faster, more bills are approved or disapproved at a quicker pace. This allows them to speed throgh less important bills, and take more time for highly important bills. Also, they will have more time to debate the law before it's voted on .Current Proceedings should be changed, because if they fail to read the bill wholey and thoroughly, they may miss key points they could use to argue for or against it. They may also miss a major flaw that would need editing. Also, eventhough they'd have more debate time without reading it fully, they will be less informed on the topic they're debating.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in these articles is whether or not the congressmen should read a bill to its entirety before voting.This is more of an issue between the majority and minority groups.The minority want to read and fully understand the bill before passing it, but the majority want to get the bill passed and just concentrate on the key points. The current reading procedures should not be changed because many bills are presented to congress each year. Congress would not be able to read each bill word for word and still have enough time to partake in other things of equal or greater importance.On the other hand, the current reading procedures should be changed because if congress does not take the time to read through the entire bill they could pass over important details and ideas of the bill at hand.
ReplyDeleteThe issues that the two articles above are stating is the amount of time that congressman have to read and understand the bills that they are about to pass. The issue of being Democrats or Republicans normally goes hand in hand with the concept of majority and minority. In this case the majority is the Democrats and the minority is the Republicans. The majority in the issue of the health care bill seems to be the Democrats and the minority the Republicans. It seems to be that the majority is saying to pass without reading the bill and the minority is trying to buy more time by complaining to read the whole bill. The majority and minority rolls are always the same no matter who is in either one. The bonus to having the current reading procedures would be the fact that we can get laws passed extremly fast and if there was a national problem that needed fixed, the ability to quickly enact a law would be beneficial to controlling the populus. The benefits to the new idea of having the new bill posted for 72 hours on the internet before it can be voted on is also very beneficial. If the bill is open to the public and the legislature for a decent amount of time, this gives the congressman time to debate and completely understand their views on the possible bill coming into play. If we understood the laws that are about to be made better, then we would be better informed on the outcome of the bill. We would have more time to think about the consequences and the benefits and then weigh them together. Both have their ups and downs, but chances are that the majority will always take advantage of their numbers and pass what their party wants, Republican or Democrat.
ReplyDeleteThe issue that the articles is stating is how much time congressman have to spend reading and comprehending a bill that is going to be put to a vote. This is definitley an issue of the house Majority and minority. The Demcrats who are now the house Majority are turning a deaf ear to the Republicans who are now complaining about the amount of time they have to consider a bill. the current reading procedures should not be changed because it is a proven system that works. However the current system could be changed to make the process mor fair for both the house Minority and majority.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is whether or not a bill gets debated enough before it gets passed. The issue is more between the majority and minority parties, because the republicans have been just as guilty as the democrats at ramming bills through congress. The minority party is more for the issue of needing more time before the bill gets to congress then the house, whereas the majority do not care as much. The current reading procedures should not be changed because it has been working fine for this long and and people have not been complaining until now. The reading system should be changed on the other hand because it may cause a bill not to be passed because they ovelooked a small detail that could have made it better.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is whether or not congressmen should have to read a bill thoroughly before voting on it. This issue is more between the majority and minority than it is between the democratic and republican parties, which ever one is in the minority complains about the majority. The reading procedures should not be changed because more bills are being passed quickly, and helping. the reading procedures should be changed because congressmen should know what they are voting on more thoroughly, so they don't end up screwing up the country.
ReplyDelete