DA>EP> The bad part about attempting to communicate your position on
DA>EP> legislation is the legislation it'self changes radically and
DA>EP> rapidly. You don't often get the finished bill and sufficient time
DA>EP> to examine it closely. Amendments are often added almost as the
DA>EP> votes are being taken. EP
As long as they don't add them after the votes have been counted :)
DA>The Crime Bill is one of the worst examples of this. It was over 20,000
DA>pages long and the final copy had addenda stuck on with staples, paper
DA>clips and rubber bands. In addition the whole thing was covered with
DA>hand-written notes (some in pencil) and 3M stickums. It is actually
DA>impossible to prove that the bill that was passed is the same one that
DA>Clinton signed.
DA>If I could make one change in the way Congress does things, it would be
DA>to outlaw multiple purpose legislation and non-germane amendments.
If you read the rules of both the House and the Senate correctly, this
is already the case.  That's (part of) why there is that blather at the
head of the bill, to make the specific, single purpose basket to sweep
the texts into.
 EP>         If anyone in congress still understands the legislation they
 EP>         pass, I'd be surprised. Your idea would be a good one, but how
 EP>         to enforce it? Ernie P.
Well, they could start by publishing the final form of the bills before
they are voted on, say 14 days before.  If they want to change it, that's
fine, they have to make the changes, and then publish the entire thing
again, and wait another 14 days.  
 
But since a bare majority in either house can split a bill into parts,
there's little need for such.  They don't need to be made to do things
properly, because they can.  They need to *want to do them this way --
and then it wouldn't matter if they did or not!
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------