Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work 5 Days a Week
And how are our stalwart public servants reacting to the dreadful prospect of being required to show up at work five days a week?
It’s deliusional to think that legislators only work when the legislature is in session, just as it’s delusional to think that judges onlt work when their court is in session. Most of their work takes place in other places – and most legislators work far more than a 40-hour week.
Not that I want to stick up for our congress, but Giles is right.
That doesn’t excuse the extraordinary stupidity of Rep. Kingston’s statement. Better to say that they use the time away from congress to connect with their districts. If you are representing Boise, ID, then it helps to spend time in Boise, ID - significant time to fully understand the needs and issues of your district. Complaining about 3 days away from home is a slap in the face to every road warrior out there.
… but that’s not what he said… if he meant, “I can’t represent my people if I’m away from Idaho more than two days a week,” sure, let him cut the office time. What he said, however, was that it was keeping him away from his family. Unless he’s related to the majority of people in Idaho, there was nothing in his statement saying he can’t do his job from the office, just that he didn’t want to.
Hoyer’s actions look to me to be a response to the complaint that Congress doesn’t get the business of governing done with their current work schedule. Maybe if they passed, oh, let’s say a freaking budget for the coountry BEFORE the fiscal year started, maybe they could get away with short weeks.
I’m all for this if it will end the practice of continuing resolutions.
Many Congressdues work a lot from their local in-district office, not on Capitol Hill.
Well, yeah. Rep. Kingston’s statement I categorized as “extraordinarily stupid”. Then I stated what he should have said. He could even have used that to attack the opposition party. Instead, his statement will only sell to those as stupid as him.
From what I hear, the problem is exacerbated this year because the lame-duck Republican Congress is deliberately leaving as much work as possible for the new one in order to impede the Democrats from working on their agenda items.
Given the slant of the article, I think it’s safe to assume that the reporter selected quotes from reps that would elicit the OP’s reaction.
If anything, I want my representatives at HOME rather than in Washington. I can’t trust someone to accurately represent the needs and attitudes of my home state if they’re not here the majority of the time. Especially since they do, in fact, have families to maintain, which would mean that a rep who’s in DC five days a week will likely want to spend the two days at home with loved ones as much as possible.
I’ve known a couple of government-type people. It’s an all-consuming occupation, and to think they only work when they’re in DC is ludicrous.
While I accept the premise that these folks are working 24/7, and it is not only the time they are actually in chambers that we should count, I cannot ignore the fact that they are not typically in session all year. They get the whole month of August away from session, and for 2006 they were scheduled to adjourn in October - not to return until January 2007. 2006 Schedule
Maybe if they were scheduled for a full year (like us mere mortals are in our jobs) then they wouldn’t have to be in session five days a week?
Some of their most essential work, such as passing bills to fund the federal government, must take place within the halls of congress. They haven’t been meeting often enough to get that job done.
Congress met for about three months this year, so by my count, they had 262 days to be with their families and constituents. Seems to me that they got jack shit done, so that should be changed. The Democrats are the incoming party, pushing reform. Why the hell shouldn’t they demand that Congress be a little more productive than the Roman Senate? Does anybody think that if Congress meets for five months’ worth of days this year, the representatives will totally lose touch with the voters?
I think this is true, but it would be a more compelling argument if the legislators in question spent their time away from Washington actually listening to their constituents and doing stuff directly related to governing.
What they actually end up doing, and what half the work life of an incumbent legislator actually involves these days, is raising money for the next campaign. With HR seats open every two years, you have to start collecting your war chest almost as soon as you’re sworn in.
I’m not sure how to fix the system, but i do know it needs fixing. As it stands (and this is true of the Senate, too), we have a political system that essentially pays legislators to spends time raising the money that ensures their own re-election.
It’s true that the legislature has to meet to carry out essential work, such as appropriation bills. And if Congress really is going to fix some of the mess caused by the current administration, perhaps it needs to meet more than 100 days in the year. I was just reacting to the assumption that is made by a lot of people, i.e., that legislators are only working when the legislature is actually meeting. Some of their other work takes place in DC, e.g., committee meeting, and some takes place back home, e.g., meeting constituents.
(But I suspect that the current Congress had enough time to pass a budget if they had really wanted to. The problem might be that they are just getting used to passsing continuing resolutions, so they no longer have any sense of urgency about the matter. I know from people that work in DC that continuing resolutions make it hard to run government agencies.)
The current Congress wasn’t/isn’t getting the job done. This new Congress will make sure that it does. Its called ‘reform’.
If your company isn’t getting the job done and the Board has to bring in outside management to turn it around, its called ‘good business’, something most shareholders demand. Its high-time these Leisure-suits were put on the same results-oriented tread-mill as the rest of us. They can’t be in their home state as much? Well, that’s what Staff is for. They can deal with it or resign.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up that more days in session is going to translate into a more productive Congress. More than likely it’s going to result in more “Recognizing the Contribution of the American Mechanical Pencil Industry” type resolutions.
The crap-out on the budget this year wasn’t the result of not having enough work days. Heck, ninety percent of the nuts-and-bolts work that goes into crafting a bill is done in committee, and the Appropriations Committees had all their bills out by July. And even when the Congress Criters are gone, the legion of Congressional staff who do the real legwork of writing and negotiating on legislation are still in Washington and still writing and negotiating.
The reason you end up with these bills piled up at the end of session is because they entail hard choices, and it’s easier to just keep kicking the can down the road. Why take a vote today that’s going to piss somebody off when there’s essentially no penalty for putting it off? Bad governance, but smart politics.
What’s important is not the number of days in session, but having a Congressional leadership that is willing and able to make sure that an agenda moves in a timely manner.
Perhaps the odious prospect of working 150 days a year will motivate them to use their time better.
I can understand why this was true in 1797. Why is it true now? Given videoconferencing, is there any compelling reason why Congress needs to physically be in session in Washington to debate and vote?
(Note: I am not suggesting they abandon Washington. I understand that face-to-face meetings with fellow Congresspeople are important. I’m just saying, in this day and age it seems silly to refuse to use existing technology just because it’s government work.)
If Hoyer were threatening to keep Congress in session for 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, the detractors might have a point.
All I see Hoyer saying at the OP’s link is that (a) Congress will meet for 5 days a week in January 2007, and (b) Congressmen should expect its vacations and recesses during 2007 to be shorter than in the past.
Hoyer’s my Congresscritter, and I go back and forth about him. But I’m in his corner this time. His colleagues will still have time to get back to their districts and families - just in less exorbitant abundance than in the present Congress.
Another thing that Hoyer is (cleverly) doing is cutting down the opportunities for Bush to make recess appointments. This forces new appointees to appear before Congress for grilling which increases the power of Congress to oversee what the Executive branch is up to.