Fortunately, no.
I always assumed like parliament, there was someone who presided over the trivia of running the house like recognizing next to speak, running votes, deciding on points of order - as opposed to the actual business of government. That’s pretty much standard rules of order for running meetings for most large bodies.
Speaker of UK parliament house of commons quits their party when they are named speaker. They are supposed to be neutral. Obviously we don’t have that in the US congress
You should check the actual textof the bill. Everything is broken down. Take Section 1106.
Well there you go, then, a genuine corner case. You think they’re clearly separate, but many others would say they’re clearly part of a coherent whole.
Ok, I just wanted to make sure I’m addressing the substance.
The US Speaker of the House is the party leader of the majority party in the House. The Speaker basically never presides. His/her duties are those you would expect of a party leader: formulating policies, whipping votes, assigning committees, chief messenger, and so on.
The day to day running of the House falls to Speaker Pro Tems, usually junior members of the House who get stuck with crap jobs. They rotate in and out of presiding about every hour or so. 99% of their job is simply recognizing the next speaker in order, and often that’s scripted by something called a “rule” which is a resolution passed by the House before taking up each piece of legislation that dictates who gets to speak, who can offer an amendment, and so on.
It is pretty rare for procedural motions to come up. If they do, it is almost always party line votes. Sometimes shenanigans do happen, like when a Republican Speaker kept a vote going for something like an hour or two in order to twist arms to get the outcome he desired. (Votes are supposed to take 15 minutes or less.) When things like that happen, there’s a lot of gnashing of teeth, but ultimately nothing really happens to stop the Speaker from doing such things.
I did not know that. OK, here’s another one: In Aus/UK there are party whips. They liaise with each other and with the speaker to organize house business, and they are responsible for assuring that members of their own party are organized and managed so that they turn up and do what they are told. They don’t have policy control: they aren’t ministers or members of cabinet: they have enough work to do just running things, and enough power so that it doesn’t bother them. How does that compare to the American System?
FWIW, in Aus, A bill will have just one subject. The common kind of omnibus bill is a bill to correct, modernize and update the details of a whole bunch of possibly unrelated bills: changing “He” to “They” and adding “or corporation” etc. I think it’s just a convention here.
Me. It is in my interest, as a voter, that all bills should be about basically one thing. For example:
Now suppose I ask my congressman why he voted against the disaster relief, and he tells me that he actually supported that part of the bill, but the postage stamp part was intolerable, and so he was reluctantly forced to vote against the bill. We now have a situation where it is impossible for me to research the voting records of the candidates, because a list of who was for/against the disaster relief is meaningless. Similarly, if I see a list of who voted for/against the postage stamp provisions, there will be some congresscritters who will blame their voting record on the disaster relief.
Yes, I understand that the rules allow them to attach these (un)related riders to the bills. And if there is ever a suggestion to change the rules, most of them will say, “Oh, no! Someday there will be a bill where I need to attach some pork for the benefit of my constituents, so I will vote against changing the rules.” And the voters lose out.
I also understand that there are borderline cases, where one will consider the rider to be related, and someone else will consider the rider to be unrelated. But they don’t seem to even try to make things clear for the voters.
Both the House and the Senate have Majority and Minority Whips to do essentially that. They are members just like any other so it’s only a nominal leadership position. They have no real extra power, though, except suasion and threats. Every member of Congress is theoretically independent and equal.
It may be worth remembering that the American founding fathers didn’t envision political parties, and so designed a system designed without regard to parties. Some of the structures that have been put into place since then are party-based, but not the fundamental structures in the Constitution (and even those later additions that do reference parties often have to do so in a very roundabout manner).
If one is so motivated to do research on a politician’s votes, and you find out this candidate is pro-disaster aid and anti-post office, what is the problem? You conducted research and know that he’s pro-disaster aid and anti-post office. I’m not seeing what the problem is.
If a bill were just about one topic, you’d still need to do further research beyond a politician’s yes or no vote. Let’s say you favored the disaster bill, and you find that two candidates opposed it. Well, what if one opposed it because it was too generous, and the other opposed because it wasn’t generous enough? Whether or not a bill is on a single topic, doesn’t mean that researching a voting record by itself is very useful information.
What a great idea for government - letting congress make their own rules. That is a bug, not a feature.
Are there legislatures that don’t control their rules?
So it’s basically an anarcho-syndicalist commune, with everyone taking turns being a sort of executive officer of the hour. 
How appropriate.
Others explained why a rule banning unrelated provisions of a bill won’t happen (who decides what’s related?), but the reason unrelated things are put into bills in the first place is because that’s how bills pass. You the legislator introduce a bill for your pet project. But Senator A won’t vote for it unless you add unrelated law X, Senator B won’t vote for it unless you add Y, and Senator C won’t vote for it without Z. So you say “I’ll put blank in the bill if you agree to vote for it”, then they shake hands. And after you add all that unrelated stuff, then you put it up for a vote and then it passes.
It’s more like picking a rotation of kids from the first grade class to be “line leaders” like it is an important job.
Wouldn’t that be Speakers Pro Tem? :dubious:
No, Keeve did research and was TOLD the Representative was pro-disaster aid and anti-post office. This may be a shocker, but sometimes politicians weasel or outright lie, especially when their reason for voting against a bill would be obviously detrimental to getting votes, as this case would be.
You’re requiring everyone else to make judgement calls on whether someone is being honest, instead of forcing them to own their actual positions via vote.
Unless there are specific procedural elements that are mandated by the *state *constitution or by actual law, the rules of each house are its own to determine.
For instance a state constitution may mandate, in fact, single subject bills, or second readings, or that bills be passed by counted majorities be of the total members and not just of the present. A law (which is passed by legislatures anyway) may mandate that the budget be passed by X date on the first sitting of the legislature, or what are the dates for regular sessions to start. But otherwise each House is the judge of its rules.
So basically no adult supervision.
The point with rules of procedure, set by the body itself is basic (and a problem too with British parliamentary systems). A legislature cannot tie the hands of future legislatures. Only constitutional provisions can do that. A legislature might pass laws requiring a balanced budget, or rules about single-topic bills and two-thirds mandates for certain actions, whatever. But after that, any future legislature can simply override that provision by its own vote. IIRC, a legislature cannot even say “you need 2/3 vote to overturn this law”. A simple majority can reverse any law unless the constitution says otherwise.
I agree. For all the negative attitude toward earmarks, that’s part of the business process. Without this horsetrading, nothing gets done. Sometimes the only way to get the other side to let something pass is to attach it to something that must pass. This is particularly true now that the Senate Majority Leader thinks that the sole function of his chamber is to approve right wing judges. Tacking on these amendments to emergency bills is the sole way to get things through the Senate.