An article in USA Today highlights the fact that this years Congress will probably spend a total of 97 days in session in DC.
The House of Representatives is on track this year to be in session for fewer days than the Congress Harry Truman labeled as "do-nothing" during his 1948 re-election campaign.
source

Is this bad or good? Some claim it means more time spent with their constituents being or learning to be better representatives. While others claim it is for more reflective of the fact that the Congress bit is the part time position of the job, and fund raising is the main priority.

Should we demand or perhaps even require Congress to spend at least a half a year with a few full weeks of work in DC?

Or the less time they are in session the better?

Seeing how the Constitution mandated that the Congress meet at least once a year and not once a week or once a month I think it is fairly clear that the original intent was the Congressman was a part time occupation.





Of course, over the decades as the federal power has expanded geometrically, Congress has more to do, more to get its grubby hands into.

I think we should put a cap on the number of days the Congress meets in order to 1) maximize their time and 2) minimize their impact. The scope of the federal government is far too broad, it eats up far too many resources and impacts far more than the Founders intended. We should be seeking to limit the impact of Congress, not increasing it.

Isn't that like cutting off a dog's leg to keep it from scratching at a scar or suture? Any and every time that a government has tried to "shrink" by first reducing it's ability to manage, and then subsequently reducing it's responsibilities to compensate the result has been the erosion of services, profit-taking, and twenty years of painful adjustment.

If this is true then why are they spending less and less time in session? I would assume the more and more they do the more and more they would have to be present in order to be getting their "grubby hands into" it.



Yet as our nation becomes increasingly more an more globalized the federal arm of our government becomes more and more relied upon. War, Trade, Global diseases, Natural disasters, Deficits, Immigration ..... etc.

And doesn't oversight, committee investigations and general fact finding take some time to accumulate and execute properly? It seems to me you argue for a less intrusive government that can and probably would be less effective.

Should we demand or perhaps even require Congress to spend at least a half a year with a few full weeks of work in DC?
Yes. Bottom line is that the job of a representative of Congress is no longer the part time job the constitution envisaged. To Amlord's point, I wish it were, but reality dictates otherwise.

Or the less time they are in session the better?
The less time that Congress spends in session, the more likely it is that legislation will be written by lobbyists (as much of it is now) and even less representation will be achieved by our system of government.

Right now, just getting a Congressman (or woman) to even read a piece of legislation, much less write one, seems to be a monumental challenge. Remember how many copies of the final version of the Patriot Act existed before it was railroaded through Congress?

The answer in this equation is term limits (yes, I know I'm dreaming) and perhaps forcing Congress to a minimum days of work vs. giving them ample time to feed the political machine and line their respective nest eggs. The system is clearly broken right now. I'd love to call this a "do nothing" Congress. Sadly, the small bit they do "do" seems to slap the American taxpayer around even more. If not now, then for future generations to come.

If they are sitting in session all the time then when are they going to find time to write bills and research? Personally I agree that limiting their sessions might be a good idea.

The first is the fact that you don't really have genuine debate in the U.S. Senate in the ways that I had become accustomed to serving in a State Legislature. You know we call the U.S. Senate the world's great deliberative body and historically that was true. You would have great debates between Daniel Webster and Calhoun and Clay about the state of our union and the fight against succession. Those kinds of stirring debates in which all the Senators are in their seats and the galleries are packed very rarely occur today. Most of the time when you're watching C-Span and you see people talking on the floor of the Senate, they're talking to an empty chamber. That I think is unfortunate because my experience in the State Legislature was that although Republicans and Democrats had great differences and typically the skids were greased in terms of how people would vote on particular issues, they were entirely predictable--maybe one out of five, one out of ten bills that came up would actually be modified as a consequence of the debates that had taken place on the floor. People would start asking the sponsor of a bill questions and maybe as a consequence of those questions the sponsor might withdraw the bill or he might promise to amend it. Some people's minds might be changed and they might have gone into the chamber deciding they were going to vote for a provision and, after hearing the debate, decide that they would vote against it. It didn't happen all the time, but it happened frequently enough to get a sense that in fact, as polarized as the two parties were, people were still listening to the merits of argument.

And, unfortunately, partly because of the schedule of Senators these days here in Washington, that doesn't happen very much. We're typically only on the floor when there is a vote and as soon as that vote is over people are going back to their offices to do the work that they have to do: meeting constituents, responding to mail or telephone calls, engaging in committee activity and committee work. And I think that loss of the deliberative process in Washington in the U.S. Senate is something that helps create the kind of lack of compromise and the sorts of dug-in positions that have not served the country well. -Senator Obama

I think more time is better, by far.

More time in session would force our Congressmen to work together and engage in communication. When the Constitution was drafted, it was a foregone conclusion those elected would live near their colleagues during their term of office. Are people more likely to come to agreement with those they communicate with frequently, or complete strangers they view as enemies? If they were required to meet half of the year, they might actually live in DC. So much the better.

Not long ago most Congressmen resided in Washington DC, and though they debated and bickered publicly, they also attended many social functions as a group, and opposing parties were forced to view one another as human beings. This is changing fast. Most Congressmen now live far from DC, and they come to visit only when required to do so. They don't speak to each other otherwise. The result is generally either gridlock or control by the ruling party. Only the most myopic wouldn’t be able to see the folly in this state of affairs.

America is only truly safe and the liberty of her people protected when Congresss is ON VACATION.
No opportunities to sell our freedoms to the highest bidder or the loudest fringe group demanding fealty for their block of votes.

Lets make it even better
Dorm housing while in DC. Two members per room toilet down the hall, community shower room.

Should we demand or perhaps even require Congress to spend at least a half a year with a few full weeks of work in DC?

Or the less time they are in session the better?

Time is irrelevant. What bills are pushed through Congress is relevant.

This reminds me of trying to gauge programmer productivity by lines of code or administration productivity by hours spent on a project. The most productive programmers use the fewest lines of code, and for administrators it is the fewest number of hours. That the end result works is what counts.

So, is what comes out of Congress workable? I really don't care about the time. Results, results, results.

I do tend toward this philosophy: First, do no further harm. Second, understand the problem. Third, THINK!

But this might be asking too much of politicians. Politics is married to sales, and once you get sales in there, you end up with compromised systems. Oh well, people buy junk all the time. Seems to be the state of existence as we know it.

Last year, roughly (I forgot the exact number, and couldn't find it) 10,000 bills were proposed, of which less than one percent passed. If memory serves, something like 350 passed out of almost 10,000. That is 10,000 bills which must be considered, and voted on. How exactly do you expect this to be done in such a short amount of time? Unless you believe that "we don't need no stinkin' government" in the first place, which is one way to look at it, but it has practical limitations. For instance, I'm not sure how things would be "safe for liberty and protected" without one.

You limit government power in a democracy by making the Representatives accountable for their actions, not by placing them on a permanent paid vacation so they can have MORE time for fundraising and PR work.

I would think your objective is a good one, Mrs. Pigpen, but I can not see how the good ole days and present day politics are distinguished by the length of required sessions. The problems you see are the result of entrenched career politicians, not caused by the length of sessions.

Government needs to be smaller. I can not see how making government bigger (more time required) will help to this end. Our government should be a representative government. Regular people should be able to do it. That we have laws and bureaucracy that require otherwise is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Perhaps I'm not fully informed about the process, because I don't understand how fewer sessions lead to less government. I DO know that with most jobs, simply "not showing up" doesn't lessen the workload, things just pile up and get shoddily done. I think it's safe to say that government has never been as large as it is now...but from what Bucket has indicated, it sounds as though Congress has never been in session less....On what basis are you forming this conclusion? Isn't it a bit like saying "ignoring the problems will make them disappear"?

I would agree that having fewer sessions will not lead to less government.

Congress is not there to administrate the laws but to enact them. A large government needs a larger administration but not necessarily a large legislature. Laws which have become so numerous and complicated that they require much time expenditure is an indication government has become too large. The solution would be to downsize government and reduce the complexity.

If I were in Congress, new laws would have to either: simplify past laws, eliminate government services, or update antiquated language. It should be fairly easy to eliminate most of those 10,000 bills on those grounds alone.

If Congress aims to create more individualized legislation, pertaining to individuals and small groups, and thus increase complexity and expand the legislator's role they will continue to add laws and perhaps then longer sessions will be needed. The need for longer sessions is a symptom of a problem and not a goal.

Reducing the complexity of legislation will not require longer sessions, just representatives who have this as a goal.

I believe that it is bad. It sounds as if they are trying to cram everything in on a tuesday through thursday schedule, while having the time back home for the weekend to campaign and to stay in contact with the constituents. The fact that committee members are up and leaving in the middle of testimony or questioning is very bothersome to me. You have to wonder if they aren't hastily passing bills or at least pushing them through for the sake of expediency rather than of having true knowledge as to what a given bill entails.



You can demand it, but nothing will come of it as they are the ones who determine the schedule. What are we going to do?-ban them from making a motion to adjourn? I don't believe it would be very practical. It's similar to requiring them to observe *meaningful* campaign finance reform. To me, the way to correct the situation is for non-incumbents to use their record against them. That is the way accountability should work. There is no need for constitutional amendments, legislation, or referendums when the citizens have the vote.




Less time, less damage created eh? I don't know if that is the case. If they can cram in bills and the government doesn't have to shut down and continues to mail the checks to social security recipients and federal employees, then things must be going just fine to a minimal degree.

I agree with you (Bucket) that our politicians spend far too much time fund razing and too little time dealing with the business of our laws. Worse the fund raising activity leads to political favors. Both are bad for the country.

We need to IMO move Campaign finance reform forward and perhaps consider using government funds to fully fund ALL campaigns that meet a certain (defined) criteria. The total cost of all campaigns is totally insignificant in our budget and the money would be saved many times over if just some of the “pork barrel” favors done for big supporters were never funded.

Not to be a nattering, nabob, of negativity, but is there any indication that this is the case? If they only passed a dozen bills, then perhaps a case could be made for the argument. At the same time, I believe the number of bills passed is still quite substantial, certainly enough to guarantee that the government is sending out checks and won't shut down in the near future due to inaction.



I definitely agree that this is the case, while political campaign reform is a pressing issue, putting it together with the length of sessions shouldn't be done IMHO as it would take an action such as forbidding motions to adjourn and that kidn of thing-and who makes the laws?