How does the existence of committtees in the House and Senate enable Congress to work more eficiently?
596757
Well, instead of having every rep and senator trying to be an expert on every issue, committees divide the taskload so that groups of reps and senators can concentrate on specific areas of issues.  In turn, they are expected to educate their fellow congress members on the key points of their issues so that in theory, all members can make an educated vote when time comes to vote for a bill.\n\nConsidering that a filibuster is used to delay/prevent a vote, ... when you're in the midst of a filibuster, you're not really dealing with the issue at hand.  Instead, you may be talking about anything but the issue, since you're just rambling on and on to stall and derail the real issue.
923091
They can only be as effective as the rest of Congress allows them to be, which is unfortunate because they were given a huge mess to clean up.
287638
Yes they can make any law they want. They often do. We vote them in we can vote them out, but this doesn't appear to do the trick either in many instances. It it my opinion that the corrupt corrupt others, so it is a never ending cycle. Many people have given up, so it mekes their ability to "do what they want" easier.
752105
House. If only one.\nNot necessarily more power.  They just can just set the agenda better from the house.  Even though it may not get past the senate.
457870
For clarification...fillibusters cannot occur in the House, only in the Senate, same with placing holds. The Rules committee in the House sets the agenda and therefore decides when each bill will be debated. They also set rules for the debate, such as whether or not amendments can be added to the bill. Before the bill is even sent to the floor for a debate though, it must pass through the committee. If the committee doesn't like the bill they can pigeon-hole it, that is not report the bill out to the floor for a vote.
877547
It's a lame duck because it doesn't have any popular authority left. Since most of it's members have been voted out of power, it cannot claim the mandate necessary to enact broad, sweeping legislation. It must only muddle along till the newly elected congress comes about.
619878
Because not every politician knows everything about everything. So they set up committees to handle their own little special projects/investigations as they relate to their committee's objectives. Then once the committee has accomplished their task, they present it to the rest of the senate for review. It is probably one of the few ways in which our government has made things more productive.
762429
No because l really think Bush will actually do a better job with the Democrats in control of Congress. While he had no checks and balances there was no reason for him to actually do any real legislating. Now he has no choice but to work with congress without having a blank check that is stamped by congress. He can either work with congress or be a lame duck.
83903
The president is the peoples representative.  If Congress tries to become too powerful, he has the ability to veto legislation and force them to pass it with a 2/3rds vote instead of a simple majority.
701578
politicians make the laws, and they always protect themselves. congress is exempt from every law it passes! and the big money ministers (aka televangelists) put so much money into the pockets of politicians that they are virtually above the law.
977093
It depends , it can take a few weeks , or a few months.  It depends on the amount of debate the bill generates.  A healthy amount of debate produces better bills, so Congress should never be pressured or rushed.
876022
Each of the 50 states can send 2 Senators to congress.  This allows each state equal say in the political process\n\nEach state sends a number of Representatives to the House, the other half of Congress, to represent them.  The thing is, Representatives in the House correlate with the population of each state, so a more populous state has more Representatives than a less populous state.\n\nIt all arose from debate about whether the states should have equal say in the political process or whether it should depend on population.  Our congress is a compromise, the Senate was developed so each state has an equal say, the House for those who thought population should determine how much say each state has, dependent upon population.\n\nNeither has ministries, they simply retain the legislative power, with set rules governing how each half of Congress interacts with each other in making laws.  Each half retains specific powers, and often they share powers as well.  Congress, the House and Senate combined, is simply one of 3 branches of government.  \n\nIf you have any more questions my email is open, so simply ask, and I'll be happy to let you know!
746102
It's a good question, but unfortunately there are more factors involved with each of our representatives than are outlined in the duties and responsibilities which theoretically make up the office which they hold.  First I should note that two terms is a blink of the eye in the House.  In the Senate a two term limit might reasonably be argued for, as 12 years is a far more significant amount of time than the 4 years which two terms would provide a Member of the House.\n\nMembers of the House in particular have a very difficult time accomplishing a great deal in their first term in Congress.  A significant amount of time is necessary for a Member to gain the political capital, make connections, become familiar with the customs and precedence of the body, and become an effective legislator.  If every legislator served one, or even two terms in the House, Congress would be an incredibly inefficient body (even more so than it is now).\n\nSecondly, due to the short term of office, Members are effectively perpetually running for office, especially in competitive districts.  The amount of time which is spent campaigning and rasing funds for reelection is enormous. \n\nAs a former aid to a U.S. Representative in Washington, my own opinion is that a term limit of just two terms on the House would be a terrible mistake.  Some of the very best members seem to be the ones who have been around the longest, though certainly there are a number of Representatives who have maintained their office solely on incumbent reputation and, for the most part, have done very little to warrant the continued confidence of their constituency.  While one might argue for a limit of 5 terms or more, even this I don't support.  While there are always challenges to the rule, for the most part, an outside party will generally arise to challenge the incumbent when popular opinion is such that the incumbent no longer is serving as a good representative of the district.  In most cases, that authority faces challenges through the election process every election cycle. \n\nIf the goal were to improve the job which Members do for their districts, the solution would actually be to adopt four-year terms, negating the seemingly constant campaigning and fund-raising which Members are forced to participate in if they hope to keep their jobs after each bi-annual election.  In my experience, this constant pomp and circumstance surrounding, and the lobbying, partisanship, and political bargaining which accompanies it, is by far the single greatest threat to effective government through our elected representatives.
383695
1. It slows things down and makes enacting laws innefficient.\n\n2. It tracks and records events related to laws being enacted.\n\n3. All bureaucracies grow. Never in history have they ever gotten smaller.\n\n4. They employ mostly low performing life-long staff that work at efficiency rates that are typically 2x - 10x less than private enterprise.
824377
Because our Congressmen are reelected every 2 years and the Senators are reelected every 6 years, which are staggared so that different senators are up for reelection every 2 years. We hold the midterm elections in order to vote for these officials.
696165
You would think the senate staffer would give you the best answer but he didn't, must be working for a (D).\nCongress, both the house and the senate have all kinds of cool non legislative powers.  not only does the congress(one or the other, sometimes both) have to declare war they also have to ratify all treaties, they confirm federal, appeals and supreme court justices, ambassadors, cabinet members, so they actually approved the late great DICK Cheney, they hold the budget purse strings, but that's kind of legislative, they can remove judges, presidents or anyone they approve through impeachment, they can investigate anyone in public, in some MA senators case they can get away with DWI and vehicular homicide and Child porn in FL. Okay the last two were political jabs but Congress has buckets of non legislative power, enough to keep them busy without passing any new laws all year long if they wanted.
23080
You'd be surprised.  Members of Congress spend lots of time in their district.  All of them maintain homes there, and (unlike Senators who run for reelection every six years) members of Congress are continually involved in permanent fundraising and community outreach in their districts.