Following New Year’s Day, two legislatures convened. On 11 January, the Virginia General Assembly went into session in Richmond, Virginia. Ninety miles north—following a rather raucous beginning in the House of Representatives—the US Congress convened in Washington, DC. There’s much to be learned concerning both.
In Richmond, the Virginia General Assembly is the legislative body of the Commonwealth, composed of a Senate of 40 members, and a House of Delegates of 100 members. The oldest and continuously meeting legislature in the Western hemisphere, the Virginia General Assembly is the model of an orderly legislature.
I recall my years served in the House of Delegates as a very procedure-based experience. Legislation was thoroughly vetted and considered. When a bill was introduced by a legislator, the proposal was assigned to a committee of jurisdiction where it was heard and evaluated by advocates and opponents. That included how the proposal comported with both the state and federal Constitutions, was consistent with existing statute law, and was good policy.
If the proposed legislation met these expectations, the legislative body that introduced the bill—either the Senate or the House—would then consider it three times before deciding on its fate. If it passed muster, it would then be fully vetted by the other body. If it passed a second vetting in that other body, it would be sent to the Governor where it was signed into law.
Of course, there was an involved amendment process throughout the entire life cycle of a bill before it became law. That included consideration of amendments in committee, on the floor of the Senate or the House, and by the Governor who could propose amendments to the bill. It was an involved process that had one single goal. Get it right and avoid unintended consequences of passing a law that, when implemented, would not meet expectations.
As a committee chairman, I saw this process in detail and it rarely failed to produce good legislation that stood the test of time. And a key part of that was the potential for amendments at almost every stage of the bill’s consideration. Moreover, that process was accompanied by robust—and occasionally emotional—debate where the purpose and impact of the legislation was fully revealed. Rarely were we ever presented with a bill that we did not have a chance to read or have explained through rigorous interrogation by members, both for and against the legislation.
Another key aspect to the legislative process in the General Assembly was adherence to what we called the “single object rule.” That required the bill be drafted to deal with specific issues. Any effort to amend a bill to include extraneous issues could see the amendments ruled out of order as “not germane” to the object of the underlying legislation. That way, the General Assembly could control the “Christmas tree” effect of hanging unrelated “ornaments” on a bill to satisfy several “pork barrel” special interests. For example, you could not use a bill on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay to include abortion or gun legislation.
When it came to budgets, there was great discipline in the General Assembly, the central feature being a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. The General Assembly was prohibited from passing a budget that was not based on real revenues rather than obscene deficit spending ad infinitum.
Finally, every day at high noon, both houses were required to be seated in their respective chambers to consider the day’s bills for the public to see in the full light of day. Without a doubt, the legislature in Virginia is a paragon of legislative order, often considering more than 2000 bills in a two-month session. Its federal counterpart could not be more different.
The US Congress is anything but orderly. Legislation bypasses rigorous consideration in committees enroute to passage in the bill’s originating chamber. Often the amendment process has been completely blocked by arbitrary rules imposed on the legislation to prohibit changes or even enough time to fully debate the proposition. Congressional elites controlled that process, locking out junior members from influencing legislation in a way representative of the people who elected them to Congress.
The lack of robust open amendment opportunities and full debate amounts to grossly negligent irresponsibility within the congressional legislative process. Until last week when one body, the House, adopted reformed rules to embrace both open amendments and full debate. The new House Speaker months ago pledged to follow what is called “regular order” in considering bills. He kept this promise.
Imagine if—added to this—Congress required its members to be in their seats at noon every day for mandatory, detailed debates over bills and their amendments in full transparency? It’s needed. And to get there, Congress only needs to look ninety miles south of DC.
0 Comments