Lawson for Congress

Time for Change

When people ask why I'm running for Congress, I start with a summary of my four primary concerns about our federal government, and Congress in particular:

1. Most people assume that our elected Representatives and their staff actually read the bills before they vote on them. They don't.
2. Many people assume that our lawmakers limit legislation to a single topic at a time. They don't do that, either.
3. Most people assume that our elected Representatives actually write legislation. Increasingly, they don't.
4. Finally, many people assume that Congress follows rules concerning what our federal government should, and shouldn't, do. Not any more.

Our process of government is broken. The current process obscures accountability, serves only special interests, and is a disservice to the American people. I believe it's time for a new generation of principled leadership, and I want to pass the following four bills to correct the legislative process and return control to the people:

1. The Read the Bills Act: Congress should read legislation before it votes on it.
2. The One Subject at a Time Act: Congress should limit legislation to one subject per bill.
3. The Write the Laws Act: Congress should write laws and be accountable for their results, and not delegate rulemaking authority to unelected bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists.
4. The Enumerated Powers Act: All legislation must specify the Constitutional authority upon which it is based.

Here are some eye-opening examples of what's happening today:

Reading the Bills

The PATRIOT Act is a perfect example of legislation that never should have passed. Why? Because it was only available to Representatives for fifteen minutes before leadership called for a vote. As Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:

The most sinful aspect of [the PATRIOT Act's] passage was how members of the House were not permitted to read it. It was posted on the House Intranet for 15 min [before the vote] and it’s 315 pages long. I read it twice, and it took me 20 hours each time. And you need in front of you not just it, but lots of other statutes, the full U.S. criminal code, to process it. It does lots of amending of other statutes, so you need to reread [those] statues to figure out what government has done by amending that statute.

I was speaking in the Midwest—I don’t want to tell you where, somewhere in the great Heartland—two weeks ago and at the end of my speech, after I said many of these things I’m saying here and in my book, there was a congressman in the audience. He and I socialized a bit, and he said, “Judge, I’m a little ill at ease. I didn’t know until hearing you tonight that the Patriot Act permitted self-written search warrants and criminalized speech about receiving them, and I voted for it twice.”

And I said—knowing how he was going to answer—I asked, “Didn’t you read it? You voted on it.” No, he didn’t have time, he only read the summary. And he didn’t remember the summary talking about self-written search warrants and criminalized speech. He told me many of his colleagues were in the same situation. I said, “WRONG—all your colleagues are in the same situation! No one in the House except maybe leadership read the Patriot Act you voted on!” It’s abominable for the government to tamper with our basic liberties—but it’s inconceivable that they would do so without any debate.

Suffice it to say that voting "Yea" when legislation cannot even possibly have been read is legislative malpractice.

There are plenty of additional examples, such as our over 600-page Farm Bill. Clearly, we have a readability problem when legislation is over 600 pages.

One Subject at a Time

How can bills be that long? One reason is that legislators treat bills like freight trains: when a bill is likely to "leave the station", lawmakers start "piling on" with unrelated provisions, many of which would never pass on their own. The Farm Bill has several good examples, such as an unrelated provision that allows the Department of Homeland Security to bring Foot and Mouth Disease onto the mainland United States, when previously it could only be studied offshore.

The REAL ID is another example. It failed to pass as standalone legislation, but then was tacked on as an unrelated provision to a "support the troops" military funding bill. Finally, you can look at the recently-passed Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Somewhere in the middle of fixing the housing crisis, the bill contains language that requires payment processors like Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal to report your transaction data to the federal government. What does that have to do with housing relief?

As a result of these poor practices, the Executive branch asks for things like the line-item veto. Failing that, the Executive branch has made the problem worse by engaging in questionable "signing statements" that arbitrarily reject parts of legislation passed by the Congress.

Write the Laws

The third problem is Congress' tendency to not even write legislation any more. When you do run into a bill that is short enough to read, typically that bill doesn't actually create or amend laws. Instead, Congress has started delegating its Constitutional lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists -- with predictable and often unpleasant results.

The first time I experienced this phenomenon was when I was in medicine and HIPAA was coming to fruition. I watched as legislation that many assumed would protect the privacy of protected health information actually did the opposite -- the lobbyists and bureaucrats who wrote the rules created a system where everyone who has a financial interest in your care has easy electronic access to your information, while at the same time, physicians and caregivers are less able to use judgment and common sense when sharing information with you and your family.

Another great example of this trend is H.R. 1955, or the so-called "Thought Crime" bill. H.R. 1955 doesn't actually contain a new law -- instead, it authorizes a committee to travel the world and learn how other countries deal with the problems of "homegrown terrorism and domestic radicalization". This committee then is empowered to create policy recommendations that will be implemented by our Attorney General. Does that sound like a good idea? What if we don't like the policy recommendations? Who is accountable for the results?

Respect the Constitution

Finally, and most importantly, there's one fundamental question: What is the role of the federal government? Congress should not be able to pass any legislation just because it seems like a good idea, and can get the votes. Our Constitution specifies that there are things our federal government should do, and any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Ignoring that fundamental principle means that we cease being a Republic, or nation of laws -- not to mention what it is doing to inflate the size and cost of the federal government.

So... if Congress isn't reading the bills or writing the laws, if legislation doesn't respect any limits on the government's power, and if the legislation they pass is partially ignored by the Executive Branch, does our government represent the people?

Above and beyond any particular issues, I believe a renewed emphasis on good government is critical to reshaping our future. These are not partisan proposals, but they are a radical change to the way Washington operates. Can we make this change? Can we afford not to?

With your help, we will.