“One Issue, One Bill Act”

Draft Proposal “One Issue, One Bill Act”

Title: One Issue, One Bill Act

Purpose: To ensure transparency, accountability, and focused legislative deliberation by requiring that all bills and resolutions introduced in Congress address only a single issue or subject.

Section 1: Short Title
This Act may be cited as the “One Issue, One Bill Act.”

Section 2: Findings and Purpose:

  1. The legislative process is often hampered by the inclusion of unrelated provisions in bills, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability.
  2. The practice of “bundling” multiple issues into a single bill prevents legislators from voting in accordance with their constituents’ wishes on each individual issue.
  3. A “One Issue, One Bill” approach will promote clarity, reduce the potential for political maneuvering, and restore public trust in the legislative process.

Therefore, it is the purpose of this Act to mandate that all proposed legislation address only one issue or subject, thus allowing members of Congress to vote on each issue based on its own merits.

Section 3: Definitions
For the purposes of this Act:

“Single issue” means a matter or topic that is clearly related to one area of policy or public interest, without unrelated provisions or amendments.

“Legislative riders” refer to additional provisions, often unrelated, attached to a bill to secure passage or block other legislation.

Section 4: Requirements

  1. Single-Issue Legislation: All bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions submitted to Congress shall address only one specific issue or subject.

No bill shall contain unrelated topics or amendments that do not directly pertain to the primary purpose of the bill.

Bills that address multiple aspects of a single overarching issue (e.g., healthcare reform, infrastructure improvements) may be permitted, provided that each section is germane to the primary subject matter.

  1. Prohibition on Unrelated Riders:
    No appropriations or authorization bill shall include riders unrelated to the primary focus of the legislation.

Any amendment introduced must be germane to the subject of the original bill.

  1. Transparency and Accountability:
    All bills shall have a clear, concise title that accurately reflects the content of the legislation.
    A summary of the bill’s single issue must be provided, and it shall be publicly available at least 72 hours prior to any vote.

Section 5: Enforcement

  1. Any bill that violates the provisions of this Act shall be subject to challenge by any member of Congress and may be struck down by a majority vote.
  2. The House and Senate Parliamentarians are authorized to review and determine whether a proposed bill complies with this Act prior to it being introduced for debate.

Section 6: Effective Date
This Act shall take effect immediately upon its enactment.

Justifications for the Proposal

By requiring that each bill address only one issue, it becomes easier for the public, media, and legislators themselves to understand the content of the legislation. This transparency fosters greater accountability.

Unrelated riders are often used to secure votes through “pork-barrel” spending that benefits specific districts or interest groups. By prohibiting these riders, the legislation would prioritize merit over political bargaining.

Legislators would be forced to debate and vote on the merits of a single issue, making their positions clear to their constituents. This would also reduce the need for rushed votes on massive omnibus bills.

Public confidence in Congress is often undermined by the perception of backroom deals and political maneuvering. A “One Issue, One Bill” policy would demonstrate a commitment to ethical governance.

65 Likes

Let’s make this an amendment to the constitution!

18 Likes

I would agree with Chris, this would likley need to be an amendment. When reading what you posted it reminded me of back when the line item veto was being discussed.

In drafting an amendment as a check to the congress I could see giving the president the line item veto to specify remove unrelated items. With this if congress disagrees with the president the Supreme Court could take up any cases and rule.

This has great potential for saving and ensuring Americans better understand what is in a bill and what a representative is voting in favor of.

3 Likes

Rep. Andy Biggs (AZ-5) introduced the One Bill, One Subject Transparency Act (HR 91) in January 2023. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary but there’s been no action since.

I absolutely agree with your proposal, and with Chris’ suggestion that this be made a constitutional amendment. The House should, at minimum, resurrect and pass Rep. Biggs’ bill.

11 Likes

Thank you for the post. I located the bill at this link (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/91)

6 Likes

All this takes is one politician to intruduce. Any politician who votes no on this should never get reelected.

7 Likes

Proposals like this one will get nowhere without a change to the forum.

This Proposal is suggesting a near similar policy to yours, yet has massively more support.

This forum organization will lead to the continued posting of repeat policies that we all support. Combine support and propose merges. Vote on popular policies, not repeats.

Without Forum change, this will just be another message board.

2 Likes

Definitely one issue one bill! It’s ridiculous that no one even reads them because they’re 1000 pages with all kinds of pork slipped in. Also make lobbying illegal. Congress is basically being bribed to pass bills. They come in middle class and end up millionaires. How does that happen in a government job??

6 Likes

I agree. I would like to add that all proposed laws be required to state in clear, precise language the intended purpose of the law. Why the law was written and exactly what it was intended to prevent or dissuade. No law should need to be “interpreted” by judges after the fact- including SCOTUS. A ‘sunset’ clause should also be strongly considered for most laws.

5 Likes

I absolutely support this idea. Too many bills fail because of add-ons that are unrelated which then allows the media to twist the truth by claiming those who vote against don’t support the main issue of the bill.

6 Likes

Well presented! These 2000 page omnibus bills are an evolved scheme by every representative in Congress to embed their pet projects and objectionable subversive attacks on the Liberties of the American People. These bills are stuffed with pork and unconstitutional proposals sometimes years ahead of them being ratified into law. The game is over - America will return to its constitutional roots - and the traitors who schemed and plotted within the hallowed halls of our legislative branch should now pay the price for it going forward. Treason is not an accident – it is done with malice and forethought. Time to pay the piper.

And in order to stop this treason in the future, we should demand that, before bills become laws, they are kept simple and direct, using common English dictation. Lastly, bills that are labled incorrectly for the express purpose of lying to the American People (ie: “The Patriot Act” and 'The Affordable Care Act" and the “Inflation Reduction Act”) by those creating and/or sponsoring such Congressional legislation, should be held in contempt of Congress, with civil and criminal penalties levied against them. Enough is enough. Thanks.

7 Likes

This is a great idea, I posted my proposal on theirs. It is a grand idea, I hope it gets implemented.

3 Likes

Thanks!

1 Like

Why not just make it law?

1 Like

Great idea! There is another proposal for this here, you may want to merge:

https://forum.policiesforpeople.com/t/single-issue-bills-for-congress/88/975

2 Likes

Although you make a good point that computer programmers (like myself) should perhaps invest more energy into further customizing the forum, this takes tremendous time and effort – and neither the American People, nor the four-year assigned Trump administration legislative bulldozers have such time to waste.

Insead of seeing the flaws of redundant policy posts, perhaps we can be thankful that our communications technology has evolved far along enough to allow a virtual town hall of sorts, where the American People can personally yet remotely attend and have their voices heard.

It is not a perfect world…but we can certainly deal with slight imperfections along the way to: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, right? I would have to disagree on the futility of this exercise because of forum design. The policy suggestions thusfar posted HAVE INDEED gone somewhere – they have gone into the eyes, ears, and minds of our patriotic brothers and sisters (including my own) in order to brainstorm, record, and finally collaborate on a more perfect Union We probably all agree on that, right? . :us:

1 Like

If the founding fathers were satisfied with the state of affairs during their time, we’d be a subset of the anglo-empire. If the next generations after held that mentality, there’d still be slavery.

Improvement and advancement is the only way forward. No time used for the development of such a forum/concept-that being free speech and represenation-is a ‘waste of time’ nor does Kennedy or the currency Administration directly run this site.

The proposition against my own for improving users ability to collaborate through merge technology or vote via a more organized system, being that ‘it’s fine how it is’ is the type of non-involvement by our communities that has led to federal centralization and lack of communication in the first place.

Fostering such a ‘town hall’ will require an evolving aproach to how message boards are used, and how they can communicate with a population.

If the administration is going to take suggestions from this site (instead of Congress, which in a working democracy would be representative of it’s people) than there needs to be a very hammered out system of communication, shared support, editing, sorting, verification, and voting.

I completey agree that we should constantly evolve our communication systems. I am merely pointing out that we must press on with policy suggestions like this one. Since I am not part of the computer programming team that built this forum; and my sole purpose for being here is to have my voice on political issues that I care about, heard in an open public forum of other like-minded patriots, is my sole interest.

I have posted extensively in these forums, conveying my thoughts and wisdom to others, who might further refine or encorporate them, so that these ideas eventually make it to political persons who might effect change.

When I see a post that says, “These posts will go nowhere unless the forum is bla…bla…bla”, I do find objection with it and you should be willing to accept that claiming my work and effort here means nothing unless [some condition you care about] takes place, is very selfish and ignorant of you, and completely off-topic.

If you wish to construct a nation-wide virtual townhall that even Congress participates in…go start with the construction of a massive linux-based cloud server array, spinning up dynamic virtual servers within AWS (Amazon Web Services) and hire a fleet of server admins, Oracle database admins, program managers, systems design engineers, client-side java programmers, and project planners, and roll out redundant environments in production, development, and testing. We wont EVEN get into network failover protections and distributed systems redundancy across entire CONUS. Let me know when you are ‘done’ and I will come over and repost my current policy posts over on your system as well.

In the mean time, I will stay here and crank out my own quaint little policy suggestions in hope that they somehow, somewhere, fall on promising ears. I hope you understand.

No one claimed that any individual’s thoughts or work was meaningless except for you. I made a suggestion and proposal for a simple way to organize and funnel support for specific well-made topics, and a better voting system. So that extremely important proposals, like this one, are able to be merged with better written, more supported versions. To help individuals like yourself have a better voice, than simply another echo chamber to shout into.

I said:

This Proposal is suggesting a near similar policy to yours, yet has massively more support.

Proposals like this one will get nowhere without a change to the forum.

Without Forum change, this will just be another message board.

Feel free to continue to make policies, thats what this is for. I suggested bettering the forum, I can’t see why you think I was attacking you personally.

Furthermore, I made proposals → you said it was a waste of time → i defended my point → you said:

you should be willing to accept that claiming my work and effort here means nothing unless [some condition you care about] takes place, is very selfish and ignorant of you, and completely off-topic.

You also said:

this takes tremendous time and effort – and neither the American People, nor the four-year assigned Trump administration legislative bulldozers have such time to waste.

It is not a perfect world…but we can certainly deal with slight imperfections along the way to: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, right?

These simple changes, of which examples of successful versions can be found on other forums, can help individuals work with one another and make their votes more meaningful.

Please don’t take my words out of context and twist them into something else. Even the author of this thread liked and replied to my post.

You commented on my post, said it was a waste of time and that we should be happy with what we got, than twisted what I said to make it as if I were attacking a policy you made. Please kindly, waste someone else’s time.

I was nice to you on the first post - you made it nasty in reply. You sound bored and lonely. Thus, let’s keep it short and end the great “textual adventure” that you may be enjoying…

Have a nice day.