Congress clocks in to clock out

"By Dana Milbank, Published: May 31
At 10 a.m. Tuesday morning, the Senate came to order. Forty-one seconds later, it adjourned.

During this legislative session, there was no bill under consideration, no debate on the floor, not even an opening prayer or a pledge of allegiance. The only senator in the chamber was Mark Warner (D-Va.), the presiding officer.

After completing his gavel duties, Warner looked up at the 20 tourists in the public gallery and wondered aloud to the clerk what the spectators must think of the proceedings.

“They think, ‘this is our government?’ ” the clerk replied.

That’s if they’re being charitable.

The Senate is supposed to be in Memorial Day recess this week. But the chamber is so ungovernable that Majority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t even have the votes to declare a recess. So he decided instead to have a few “pro forma” sessions, such as Tuesday’s, allowing senators to take a vacation without voting for it.

In a sense, the Senate has been in a pro-forma session all year. Beyond a few ho-hum pieces of legislation — patent reform! FAA reauthorization! — senators could have taken a five-month holiday and the republic would be none the worse. Although there’s general agreement that the most pressing issue facing the federal government is its runaway finances, the Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 762 days, a new standard for dereliction of duty. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... print.html

I thought Congress was using a parliamentary procedure to technically remain in session so that President Obama couldn't make recess appointments to fill, among other things, vacant judicial seats.

I could be wrong on that.

Kate wrote: I thought Congress was using a parliamentary procedure to technically remain in session so that President Obama couldn't make recess appointments to fill, among other things, vacant judicial seats.

I could be wrong on that.

I believe you are right on that....does anyone have information to the contrary?

I heard that is the reason he did not have the votes to recess.

I think they all should have to stay in session, not just one lone voice. Easy to vote not to recess when you are going to go home anyway and let the local politicians take care of opening and closing the session.

and yeah, I know, democrats have used this tactic too.....and I still think it's stupid....put your body where your vote is.

archer wrote: I think they all should have to stay in session, not just one lone voice. Easy to vote not to recess when you are going to go home anyway and let the local politicians take care of opening and closing the session.

and yeah, I know, democrats have used this tactic too.....and I still think it's stupid....put your body where your vote is.

We might agree on something. I think they should all have to stay until they pass a balanced budget. I also think that if someone wants to filibuster they should have to do it a la Mr Smith goes to Washington, not this pansy, I declare a filibuster, now lets go home.

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote: I think they all should have to stay in session, not just one lone voice. Easy to vote not to recess when you are going to go home anyway and let the local politicians take care of opening and closing the session.

and yeah, I know, democrats have used this tactic too.....and I still think it's stupid....put your body where your vote is.

We might agree on something. I think they should all have to stay until they pass a balanced budget. I also think that if someone wants to filibuster they should have to do it a la Mr Smith goes to Washington, not this pansy, I declare a filibuster, now lets go home.

absolutely....if you are truly serious about stopping a bill, then you should be willing to stand there and talk about it till you all either get your way or faint. There is no downside to a filibuster anymore.....all you have to do is say the word.