Maybe this is the real way to fix Congress

By Jeff Orvis

Those of us who still believe that Barack Obama has a chance to be a great president, who agree with him when he expresses frustration with the obstructionist members of Congress seem to think the only fault lies with the opposing political party. It seems many of those on the other side of the aisle feel if they hold up important legislation or approval of presidential appointments, it will be their way of eventually getting rid of him in the next election.

Haven't a lot of us had that “If I ruled the world for a day” moment, figuring we could fix all the ills of Washington if somebody would give us a chance? But it's not quite as simple as having the power to stifle the Republicans and rubber-stamp everything the Democrats propose. The whole system, in place long before any member of the legislative or executive branch were born, may be to blame for so much gridlock.

I am currently reading the autobiography of former Vice President Walter Mondale. In “The Good Fight, A life in Liberal Politics,” he tells the story of the delays, frustrations and ultimate triumphs he witnessed and had a part in as a member of Congress during the 1960s and '70s, when some of the most important legislation in this nation's history were enacted. He not only ran into opposition from the other party, but since a lot of the landmark legislation dealt with civil rights, southern Democrats were also a major roadblock.

He details the efforts some senators used to block some of this legislation. Some of them were well-versed in the rules of Senate procedure and used every clause they could find to stall these bills.

Various presidential candidates over the years have pledged to reform the federal government. But some of the things explained in Mondale's book are truly frightening and show just how difficult real reform will be. Gov. Rick Perry suggested that Congress should have its pay cut substantially and go to a part-time basis. He apparently failed to realize that there's a little difference between the Texas Legislature and the legislative body charged with governing more than 300 million people and maintaining this country's status as the last remaining super power.

I suspect that most of the members of Congress have great respect for the history of this country. They realize that the decisions they make will be documented for many generations to come to study and dissect. But I wonder if all this respect muddies the waters of careful and prompt deliberations. Before a bill becomes law, it often has to go through a lengthy process including research, informal meetings among senators or congressmen, initial drafts, rewrites and several congressional subcommittee and committee hearings. Then just when you think you have a bill ready for final approval, somebody doesn't like the idea of including the approval of a pipeline in a bill meant to extend benefits to the unemployed and you have to start all over.

Spend a couple of hours watching C-Span when Congress is in session and you begin to wonder how those folks ever get anything done. When a senator rises to address a point of one of his colleague, it's “The gentleman from Minnesota” not “Sen. Jones.” I'm sure that language is based on tradition. But it's outdated and takes unnecessary time.

Sometimes, usually late at night, you might see some member of Congress speaking to a chamber of empty chairs. In this era of trying to watch every penny, why do we still condone this practice? How much money is wasted in overtime for the clerks and other personnel that have to stay at work so some senator or congressman can read something into the official record? The rules should be changed so that nothing can be read on the floor of the Senate of House unless there is a majority of members present.

The time is long past when our laws and legislation should be simplified so that you don't need to be a lawyer to understand what's going on. Every bill should be limited to a specific matter and not a catch-all for pet projects that have nothing to do with the initial reason for the bill.

There was great concern when one of the initial drafts of the health reform law was well over 1,000 pages. No bill should be more than 50 pages. And somebody should make sure that the language is clear and easy for the majority of the electorate to understand.

These are just a few of many aspects of congressional life that need to be changed. I'm sure that many first-term congressmen or senators wonder if they got in over their heads when they were first elected. That goes for members of both parties.

To be sure, agreeing to represent a segment of the population is an honor and a very heavy responsibility. It should not fall only to those who can afford to mount an expensive campaign or can navigate through the shark-infested waters of outdated tradition.

Then if we get all that fixed, we can go back to blaming the Republicans, or the southern Democrats or the representatives of rural or urban areas, or Libertarians, or the free-spending Democrats, etc., etc.