HB 27-06: Congressional Reform Resolution (Passed)

[Mike Thick]

A RESOLUTION
To reduce gridlock and streamline Congressional rule changes

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives and Senate assembled:

Section 1. Title

1. This legislation may be cited as the J.K. Sestak Congressional Reform Resolution.

Section 2. Amendment to Senate Rules

1. Article 11 of the New Senate Rules Resolution is amended to read as follows.

...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) The President of Congress shall maintain a single thread in which to preside over these votes as held by both houses, and shall regularly update the title of the thread to inform the Congress of what legislation is being considered in which house.
b.) Should the house vote to debate the legislation further, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 4-2 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Section 3. Amendment to House Rules

1. Article 10 of the House of the Representatives Rules and Procedures for Operation is amended to read as follows.

...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) The President of Congress shall maintain a single thread in which to preside over these votes as held by both houses, and shall regularly update the title of the thread to inform the Congress of what legislation is being considered in which house.
b.) Should the house vote to debate the legislation further, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.

People's House of Representatives

Sponsor: SevenEleven
Status: Passed

[Mike Thick]

Seeking a sponsor.

I'll start things off: I think it might be better to ditch the single-thread idea, and move to a model where each holdover vote is held in a thread that can be repurposed for debate if necessary. Hate to suggest changes so late in the game, but I think it's better than diving into a model that has the potential to get really screwy

[Joseph Cao]

So first of all, hasn't OBD agreed to sponsor this?

Secondly, it is important that everyone notes that we are only allowed to amend and vote on the House portion of this resolution. These are legally two separate resolutions even if they are packaged in the same joint resolution, and in fact the Senate's portion is technically already operative since it was passed. If any amendments are made to our side, it's likely that changes will also be required to the Senate version to keep the two in sync, which will be a matter for the Senate to consider.

Thirdly, if I understand the original idea correctly, there would be a single thread for votes on whether to proceed to further debate on a specific bill, and a separate thread for the same further debate. If my reading of that is correct, and feel free to correct me if it isn't, wouldn't there be at most a single holdover vote per chamber per bill? Does this screwiness, as you put it, originate from the boardwide clutter that would result from the extra threads for procedural votes?

[OBD]

Oh yeah, I can assume sponsorship. I'm a little scatterbrained RN though, sorry.

[Mike Thick]

So first of all, hasn't OBD agreed to sponsor this?

Right. I'll allow 24 hours for objections just to be safe.

Thirdly, if I understand the original idea correctly, there would be a single thread for votes on whether to proceed to further debate on a specific bill, and a separate thread for the same further debate. If my reading of that is correct, and feel free to correct me if it isn't, wouldn't there be at most a single holdover vote per chamber per bill? Does this screwiness, as you put it, originate from the boardwide clutter that would result from the extra threads for procedural votes?

That was not the original intent of the resolution. The idea was one thread in which all the pass-or-debate votes, on all the bills, in both chambers, took place. My concern is that it may be difficult to search for recorded votes on bills in this single thread, and it may be hard for individual Congressmembers to keep tabs on what's going on. I don't think there's any real benefit to doing it this way as opposed to opening a new thread for the bill like we currently do, holding the pass-or-debate vote, and then proceeding accordingly in that thread.

I suppose the fact that the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted that way (which I agree is a reasonable interpretation) is another reason this needs a little tweaking.

[Joseph Cao]

Thirdly, if I understand the original idea correctly, there would be a single thread for votes on whether to proceed to further debate on a specific bill, and a separate thread for the same further debate. If my reading of that is correct, and feel free to correct me if it isn't, wouldn't there be at most a single holdover vote per chamber per bill? Does this screwiness, as you put it, originate from the boardwide clutter that would result from the extra threads for procedural votes?

That was not the original intent of the resolution. The idea was one thread in which all the pass-or-debate votes, on all the bills, in both chambers, took place. My concern is that it may be difficult to search for recorded votes on bills in this single thread, and it may be hard for individual Congressmembers to keep tabs on what's going on. I don't think there's any real benefit to doing it this way as opposed to opening a new thread for the bill like we currently do, holding the pass-or-debate vote, and then proceeding accordingly in that thread.

I suppose the fact that the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted that way (which I agree is a reasonable interpretation) is another reason this needs a little tweaking.

Right, yes, that makes more sense from a logistical point of view. In that case the resolution effectively becomes what we have now with "hold vote on whether to proceed with debate on bill that just passed other chamber" added on as an extra step, then?

[Poirot]

First I would like to say I would have prefered if both chambers and even the general public was involved before the Senate decided how Congress should function.

The proposal is when a bill passes a bill and is sent to the other chamber, there is immediately a vote to adopt it with no debate and modification. If yes it is adopted, if no it goes back in line to be debated. There is no vote immediate vote down option.

The benefit seems to be adopting something with no debate. It gains time but isn't the two chambers system to have the other chamber examine the bill with other eyes. If someone find a flaw or has a big problem votes to debate it but the majority votes to adopt it, that elected officials has not the chance to make a point, give an opinion, try to amend the bill. I think that is the role of the elected official.

Is the vote to debate a simple majority vote or it requires unanimity.

It probably doesn't take long to adopt a bill when everyone says it looks good to me and I'll vote for it. I think there is a minimum debate time before a final vote.

[OBD]

Sorry to change directions like this but with my LOA I'll need another Rep to assume sponsorship. My apologies.

[Mike Thick]

Looking for another Representative to assume sponsorship.

[Mike Thick]

Thirdly, if I understand the original idea correctly, there would be a single thread for votes on whether to proceed to further debate on a specific bill, and a separate thread for the same further debate. If my reading of that is correct, and feel free to correct me if it isn't, wouldn't there be at most a single holdover vote per chamber per bill? Does this screwiness, as you put it, originate from the boardwide clutter that would result from the extra threads for procedural votes?

That was not the original intent of the resolution. The idea was one thread in which all the pass-or-debate votes, on all the bills, in both chambers, took place. My concern is that it may be difficult to search for recorded votes on bills in this single thread, and it may be hard for individual Congressmembers to keep tabs on what's going on. I don't think there's any real benefit to doing it this way as opposed to opening a new thread for the bill like we currently do, holding the pass-or-debate vote, and then proceeding accordingly in that thread.

I suppose the fact that the wording is sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted that way (which I agree is a reasonable interpretation) is another reason this needs a little tweaking.

Right, yes, that makes more sense from a logistical point of view. In that case the resolution effectively becomes what we have now with "hold vote on whether to proceed with debate on bill that just passed other chamber" added on as an extra step, then?

Yes, that's how it would go.

[SevenEleven]

I will sponsor.

[Mike Thick]

I will sponsor.

24 hours to object to Sev's sponsorship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First I would like to say I would have prefered if both chambers and even the general public was involved before the Senate decided how Congress should function

The Senate has not decided how "Congress" will function, that would be unconstitutional. There is a reason our vote is only applied to a single section, ours. This is a joint resolution in appearance but it legally functions as separate resolutions and the votes of each chamber can only be applied to their respective section, as the Constitution forbids anyone but a given chamber to set its own rules. 

Needless to say if both sections are not passed then the whole procedure is a moot point. Now in hindsight a non-severability clause should have been included as that was used when Congress passed the rules for the Amendment Explanation Process, but it slipped my mind at the time. Even without that, if the House were to fail its section, repealing the Senate's would not be that difficult.

[Joseph Cao]

Without objections, Sev's sponsorship is recognized.

[Poirot]

The Senate has not decided how "Congress" will function, that would be unconstitutional. There is a reason our vote is only applied to a single section, ours.

It has not legally decided but it did not involve the other chamber or the game in general since they are elected to serve people. I try to imagine how the proposal would work and I don't see just advantages.

[Joseph Cao]

The Senate has not decided how "Congress" will function, that would be unconstitutional. There is a reason our vote is only applied to a single section, ours.

It has not legally decided but it did not involve the other chamber or the game in general since they are elected to serve people. I try to imagine how the proposal would work and I don't see just advantages.

That's true for the period where the Senate was hashing things out on its side of the bill, yeah.

As far as I am concerned, Ted's vision for the bill is kind of what we already adopt for things like continuing resolutions, but extended to more ordinary pieces of legislation. I personally am not sure how much we stand to gain or lose from switching to such an arrangement – one drawback that comes to mind is a party controlling both chambers, getting a controversial bill through one chamber on party lines, and voting along party lines to waive debate in the other chamber. Continuing resolutions work under this arrangement mostly because we all recognize the need to pass them, but that breaks down for bills that don't enjoy a similar level of support. Noncontroversial bills like the Silver Alert Act generally sail through both chambers just fine without greasing the skids like this anyway.

[Poirot]

As I understand this, a bill is passed in Senate. The House votes to pass it or debate it. I imagine the vote is majority and not unanimity. So House votes 6-3 to pass it. No debate.

I don't like it removes the right of some elected officials to give their opinions or point out problems or mistakes in the bill. It also could lead to less examinition of the bill because if it's not at the debate stage maybe people will just read rapidly or the general idea of the bill.

So I have reservations.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As I understand this, a bill is passed in Senate. The House votes to pass it or debate it. I imagine the vote is majority and not unanimity. So House votes 6-3 to pass it. No debate.

I don't like it removes the right of some elected officials to give their opinions or point out problems or mistakes in the bill. It also could lead to less examinition of the bill because if it's not at the debate stage maybe people will just read rapidly or the general idea of the bill.

So I have reservations.

What you describe is legislative friction, which is a normal process that enables the kind of examination and amendment to occur, and gives the broadest sense of concern for objections of a singular representative. I am not here to guess at the motivations behind the desire for reform, but there is a lot of criticism that this process also drags things out and makes it difficult for legislation to come to fruition within a reasonable time frame. I think that underlies some of the bubbling resentment towards the current system in general.

My opinion is if the VP has a conceptualization especially limited to bills from the other chamber, I am inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt in terms of trying something different both because we have these concerns, and we have had issues with VP activity recently. I would rather see the system adapt somewhat then have it break or collapse.

That being said, it is an important dividing line between efficiency on the one hand and necessary review and consideration on the other and at some point brutally efficient legislating from a procedural standpoint means you are basically assembly lining garbage. So it is not unreasonable to be concerned thus as to the end result of this change, it is my hope that what can be achieved here will at minimum make the VP's job easier even if it isn't necessarily the proposal as currently composed.

Caveat: Everything being posted here is done so under the effects of fatigue, headache and exhaustion.

[Mike Thick]

As I understand this, a bill is passed in Senate. The House votes to pass it or debate it. I imagine the vote is majority and not unanimity. So House votes 6-3 to pass it. No debate.

I don't like it removes the right of some elected officials to give their opinions or point out problems or mistakes in the bill. It also could lead to less examinition of the bill because if it's not at the debate stage maybe people will just read rapidly or the general idea of the bill.

So I have reservations.

What you describe is legislative friction, which is a normal process that enables the kind of examination and amendment to occur, and gives the broadest sense of concern for objections of a singular representative. I am not here to guess at the motivations behind the desire for reform, but there is a lot of criticism that this process also drags things out and makes it difficult for legislation to come to fruition within a reasonable time frame. I think that underlies some of the bubbling resentment towards the current system in general.

My opinion is if the VP has a conceptualization especially limited to bills from the other chamber, I am inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt in terms of trying something different both because we have these concerns, and we have had issues with VP activity recently. I would rather see the system adapt somewhat then have it break or collapse.

That being said, it is an important dividing line between efficiency on the one hand and necessary review and consideration on the other and at some point brutally efficient legislating from a procedural standpoint means you are basically assembly lining garbage. So it is not unreasonable to be concerned thus as to the end result of this change, it is my hope that what can be achieved here will at minimum make the VP's job easier even if it isn't necessarily the proposal as currently composed.

Caveat: Everything being posted here is done so under the effects of fatigue, headache and exhaustion.

I think this is perfectly cogent Basically encapsulates my thoughts as well. The intent here is to grease the wheels a bit. However, the change this would make to "legislative friction" is a lot less dramatic than, say, a move to unicameralism. If this rule change is made, both chambers will have the same review powers they have now. They'll just have the option of expediting things if they don't think there are any problems with the legislation. Maybe I have a little too much faith in the process, but I think that generally the first chamber to consider a bill will spot most glaring errors, and if they miss some things, members of the second chamber will hit the brakes and fix what's left.

As for the issues with VP workload, I frankly didn't have that in mind when I made the proposal. No complaints on my end so far, but evidently the job has been a problem for some other people. That is certainly something to consider.

Will write up the final amendment that we've talked about tomorrow. With finals and the holidays, I've let this get away from me a bit, but I think it's still possible to wrap the rule change up in both chambers pretty soon.

[Mike Thick]

Okay, here's the amendment.

A RESOLUTION
To reduce gridlock and streamline Congressional rule changes

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives and Senate assembled:

Section 1. Title

1. This legislation may be cited as the J.K. Sestak Congressional Reform Resolution.

Section 2. Amendment to Senate Rules

1. Article 11 of the New Senate Rules Resolution is amended to read as follows.

...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) The President of Congress shall maintain a single thread in which to preside over these votes as held by both houses, and shall regularly update the title of the thread to inform the Congress of what legislation is being considered in which house.
b.) Should the house vote to debate the legislation further, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 4-2 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Section 3. Amendment to House Rules

1. Article 10 of the House of the Representatives Rules and Procedures for Operation is amended to read as follows.

...
5.) Whenever either house shall consider a bill, order, or resolution that shall have originated in the other, the President of the Congress shall immediately call a vote in that house on whether to immediately pass the legislation, or further debate it.
a.) The President of Congress shall maintain a single thread in which to preside over these votes as held by both houses, and shall regularly update the title of the thread to inform the Congress of what legislation is being considered in which house.
b.)a.)Should the house vote to debate the legislation further, debate shall proceed in a separate thread as established elsewhere in these rules.
b.) These votes shall be known as "initial cloture" votes.

[Mike Thick]

Any sponsor feedback?

[Joseph Cao]

Not the sponsor, but "in that house" strikes me as a useful clarification that should be retained to avoid confusion.

[Mike Thick]

Not the sponsor, but "in that house" strikes me as a useful clarification that should be retained to avoid confusion.

Took it out because I thought that was implicit, but more clarification is better. Will tweak to retain that language

[Mike Thick]

Sev? Just need your go-ahead here.

[Mike Thick]

Sev? Just need your go-ahead here.

Giving you guys 24 hours to object, since it doesn't seem like any feedback is forthcoming.