Rep. Mia Love wants to limit congressional bills to one subject at a time

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • rjw918 Wood, OH
    May 23, 2016 5:52 p.m.

    That "one issue at a time" was a part of the GOP's 2010 "Pledge To America"

    "Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time
    "We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time."

    Strangely , they have done the exact opposite ever since.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 28, 2016 1:15 p.m.

    Oh now Mia you aren't being a get-along go-along congressional player when you start suggesting these common sense changes. Watch out for Orin Hatch because he will call for your "re-education" like he did Mike Lee.

  • shabam Ogden, UT
    Jan. 28, 2016 10:18 a.m.

    yes, we need to stop piggy backing the bills... which is why obamacare was diluted, and messed up in order to not give it any power originally designed to work better for the people and stop corporate abuse of the health industry which doesn't care about the people's health as much as they do profits.
    Now, we just need Term Limits on all political seats including branches of govt , and no incumbents, and no conditional appointees , and vote on everything.
    stop donations, gifts from lobbyists, and unlimited funding to win elections.
    and anything changing the voter process from being unfair.
    that would be a start.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 26, 2016 2:12 p.m.

    My question is how would this be enforced as a law? Would the courts be forced to strike down a law that did not comply with this? Would there be legal penalties?

    Seems much better suited as a rule that the House could implement, and not need to involve the President and courts

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Jan. 26, 2016 7:13 a.m.

    I'm guessing this will make things easier for her to digest.

  • QuantCommenter salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 25, 2016 2:31 p.m.

    Good for Mia Love. I didn't vote for her (and probably won't in the future) but I completely support her effort on this one.

  • Moderate Thinking Logan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2016 9:28 a.m.

    I agree with this principle. There are actually many bills that get passed one subject at a time, typically with resounding bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it is the contentious ones that end up getting omnibussed and stuffed with pork of all varieties.

    There isn't much a congressman or congresswoman could do about it (unless they automatically vote "no" on all mishmashed bills in protest). However, this is the one area where I think a willing president could actually use their veto power to encourage bipartisanship.

    I always cringe when I hear the term "Presidents legislative agenda." You all remember civics in school - the president is part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. Sure, a president can introduce bills (as can any American), but I would much rather see the President focus on administering the executive branch.

    However, the constitution does grant the President veto power. What would impress me is a candidate who agreed to sign all bills with bipartisan support, regardless of his/her personal support, while simultaneously pledging to veto anything without bipartisan support. Now that would start to change things.

  • 483bzac West Valley City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 7:49 p.m.

    Put a little Love in our congressional practices. Heaven knows this would make it harder for candidates seeking office because they could not promise lobbying groups things that could not be done in the open.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    Jan. 22, 2016 1:55 p.m.

    Uncle Gadianton posted:
    Better yet, make the "Single Subject Requirement" an amendment to the Constitution. Anyone up for Constitutional Convention?
    NO! Not unless this very bill has a grandfather/retroactive clause that effects that very convention. If you have a Constitutional Convention (CC), it opens up other things for which the convention wasn't convened for to be added.
    In other words, if there is a Constitutional convention, it should be restricted to the subject for which it was convened for. Just as Love desires for Bills.

    We have a cart before the horse issue in getting it done via CC.

    And then if we did go the CC route, what if it fails to pass? Then there is no retroactive clause to dump the rest of the garbage brought up during that CC.

  • Bluto Sandy, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 12:43 p.m.

    Long over due.
    Mega bills are unpassable bills.
    And those that do pass, are a disaster, see Obamacare!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 22, 2016 11:30 a.m.

    Hey MSL Man -

    "This bundling is a fairly new type of legislation that the House and Senate approved for this very reason . . ."

    Really? What makes you think it's "fairly new." Do you have any evidence to back that up?

    As far as I know, it is not "fairly new."

    It's common for riders to be added to bills in the U.S. Senate. The rules allow for it. House rules, though, already make it much more difficult to attach unrelated riders in that lower chamber of Congress.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 22, 2016 11:17 a.m.

    If Mia Love gets her way, the ability of legislators to compromise will be damaged. And that will just add to the gridlock that already exists.

    You might not think of it as a compromise when someone attaches an unrelated rider to a bill, but compromise is EXACTLY what it is.

    And compromise is the only way Congress can function WITHOUT gridlock.

    Leave it to Mia Love, the junior REPUBLICAN legislator from Utah, to invent ways to IMPEDE good governance.

    Are we surprised?

    I'm not.

  • FanOfTheSith Vernal, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 10:31 a.m.

    Well, the best of luck convincing the greedy politicians within the big government spending crowd.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2016 10:27 a.m.

    Our Utah Legislature should do the same.

  • dave31 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 10:16 a.m.


    "Actually, how its done in the Utah legislature is for the Republicans to have a private caucus without any pesky reporters around to note who voted for or against a bill."

    Have you had any experience with this, or are you just regurgitating what some other uninformed person has told you? I'm speaking from personal knowledge, having served several terms. Bills don't get passed in caucus, they get passed on the floors of the House and the Senate where everyone can see who voted for and who voted against!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 9:37 a.m.

    How will Senator Hatch get his bonus bills for supporters after obstructing federal appointments?

  • today gunnison, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 9:26 a.m.

    Get bill! Should of been done decades ago.

    Jan. 22, 2016 9:06 a.m.

    Aww, that's cute. Freshman representative wants to get re-elected so she starts just before election season proposing populist ideas that she knows she can't deliver on. But she can say she tried.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 9:02 a.m.

    they bundle because the president doesn't have a line item veto. They know that if the bill is 80% good, most will hold their nose at the 20% bad stuff and vote for it anyway because of the good.

    The last budget bill that passed a few weeks ago is proof of that.

    Go Mia!

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 4:02 a.m.

    So Mia is actually trying to look like she's doing something for once, and finally. I guess she's running for election again and wants to make it look like she's doing something. Oh yeah -- that's right -- she is running again. Figures.

  • msl man Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 22, 2016 3:42 a.m.

    Good luck. This bundling is a fairly new type of legislation that the House and Senate approved for this very reason. Bundle so many things together overwhelms the representatives to have to rely on lobbyist who represent each and every bill that is bundled together. Its been the law for 25 years bundling law was passed so every state can hide it to access the federal treasury with little to no effort.

    Another excuse was it was taking too long to get bills passed one at a time for states and federal agency's who need immediate funding. Bundling will be a hard process to remove from the house and senate. They don't want to slow down the bills to be read, and lobbyist are effective mouth pieces to convince legislators of what the law says or doesn't say. Fire the lobbyist first and she should get some action. We ahve the elected Representative to read and argue the bills, the lobbyist are used to misrepresent the bills as surrogate private legislators.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 5:45 p.m.

    This is interesting and something I can agree with. Pork stuffing has a long history with both Democrats and Republicans. It will be interesting to see how the leaders in both political parties react to this suggestion. It certainly will make this much clearer for the process and may help the low energy Congress move forward.

    Just think. High value legislation promoted by either party doesn't get blindsided by poison pill amendments. You get what you see and nothing hidden away in the shadows. Also, it will be a good way to keep people from circumventing an issue by saying "I didn't vote for this because this other thing was there." They will have to stand on their own and explain their position directly with no excuse.

    Personally, I don't think this will be acceptable. Love may be thinking of the ways Democrats sabotage Republican-sponsored legislation by slipping stuff in, but what goes around comes around. This would mean that Republicans could not longer sabotage Democrat-sponsored legislation. And, a not so good part for any legislator who can't attach their own pork-spending bill to please the voters back home.

  • AZ Blue & Red Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 21, 2016 4:25 p.m.

    Go get em Mia. What a concept. The way it should be.

    Get the AZ guys to work with you. Salmon I think would agree. He is against all the bureaucracy that goes on there.

    Don't give up.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 3:56 p.m.

    Love is too naive to understand that there's no way this ever happens. There are reasons things have evolved the way they have and now Congress is so far down the rabbit hole they'll never come back out. Good try by Love to change the way things work but it's just not going to change. Makes me wonder if she's doing this solely as a political stunt to win her constituents' hearts, in which case it makes me like her even less. If she's really this naive to think she can change the way bills are passed then she's not the person we need in Washington. Either way things don't look good. I also haven't looked at bills produced from her office, does she practice what she's preaching? If she is, how many of those bills have passed?

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 3:07 p.m.

    As much as I would like to see it, this won't ever happen. The reasons are that many senators / congressman hides something in them in order to get it passed. They are hoping that if they add it into hundreds of pages of legaleze it will be overlooked. This would be a great thing in that it would help trim a lot of un-necessary pork barrel items but would help curb the huge amount of corruption in Washington.
    Mia is fighting an uphill battle with this and I doubt it will ever happen but I respect her for it and fully support her.

  • Uncle Gadianton Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 21, 2016 3:03 p.m.

    Better yet, make the "Single Subject Requirement" an amendment to the Constitution. Anyone up for Constitutional Convention?

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:54 p.m.

    @dave31 Actually, how its done in the Utah legislature is for the Republicans to have a private caucus without any pesky reporters around to note who voted for or against a bill.

  • HappyDad Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:52 p.m.

    Great idea! Too bad pork-lovers will probably kill it before it ever gets a fair hearing.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:47 p.m.

    We already discussed this with Mia's letter to the editor.
    School Boards and Town Councils have had consent agendas for years. All the day-to-day bills are voted on as a group. If any member for any reason wants to pull something out, discuss it, and vote on it separately all they do is say so.

    But the congress is too cool (or too corrupt) for that.

    How do you expect them to bury their pork?

    Actually, Mike Lee wrote a book about it. We now know Mia knows how to read, I guess.

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:46 p.m.

    amen. Next problem and solution?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:36 p.m.

    Besides, it's easier to read.

  • dave31 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:31 p.m.

    This proposal is the way it is done in the Utah Legislature. Perhaps that is why Utah is solvent and the Federal Government is not!

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Jan. 21, 2016 2:27 p.m.

    I never thought I'd agree with Mia Love on anything. This actually makes sense.