E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAccording to a recent Gallup poll, only 18% of Americans say they approve of the work this Congress has done -- so it's more than likely it won’t go down as one of the more popular congressional bodies.
J. Scott Applewhite / AP
Construction continues on the viewing stands for President Barack Obama's January's Inauguration Day ceremonies, early Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
But with only weeks to go before it concludes, the 112th Congress (2011-2012) is on track to make another type of history.
By passing just 196 bills into law so far, it is in the running to become the least productive Congress since the 1940s.
In fact, that amount is 710 fewer public laws than was produced by the 80th Congress (from 1947-48), which first earned the moniker "Do-Nothing" Congress.
The lack of legislation passed by Congress in recent years has become frustrating to many lawmakers. Outgoing Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) decided not to run for re-election because of the congressional gridlock, partisan politics, and lack of work being done on Capitol Hill.
Rep.-elect Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., and Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., talk about the possibility of a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.
“As I have long said, what motivates me is producing results for those who have entrusted me to be their voice and their champion, and I am filled with that same sense of responsibility today as I was on my first day in the Maine House of Representatives. I do find it frustrating, however, that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions,” Snowe said in a statement announcing her retirement last February.
The U.S. House Clerk’s office keeps official records of all congressional activity dating as far back as 1947. During those 65 years and 33 different Congresses, more than 20,000 public laws have been passed.
The 104th Congress (1995-1996) currently holds the record low for passing the fewest pieces of legislation since 1947 -- just 333 bills were passed into law during that two-year span.
A non-partisan group determined to fix the sky-rocketing national debt went to Capitol Hill Wednesday, meeting with both Republican and Democratic leaders. David Cote, chairman and CEO of Honeywell, was among the leaders and he recapped the meeting to NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
The 107th Congress (2001-2002) is next, passing only 377 new laws during its time in Washington.
To avoid earning the distinction as the least productive Congress since 1947, 138 bills must move through the House and Senate before the end of this Congress next month.
And with just 11 scheduled voting days left before the House’s target adjournment date for the year -- and with all eyes fixed on the looming fiscal cliff -- time is running out.
The number of bills passed into law by Congress since 1947:
80th: 906
81st: 921
82nd: 594
83rd: 781
84th: 1,028
85th: 936
86th: 800
87th: 885
88th: 666
89th: 810
90th: 640
91st: 695
92nd: 607
93rd: 649
94th: 588
95th: 634
96th: 613
97th: 473
98th: 623
99th: 664
100th: 713
101st: 650
102nd: 590
103rd: 465
104th: 333
105th: 394
106th: 580
107th: 377
108th: 498
109th: 482
110th: 460
111th: 383
112th: 196 (so far)
Leave a Comment:
This article is more proof of what idiots we American are. Everyone talks about how it is democrats or republicans, but the problem is us.
If only 18% of the people approve of congress, why do the same people get re-elected over and over again. If we the people want change, next time you vote, don't look at the party the are in, look at the job title, if it says incumbent, vote for someone else.
Suppose these politicians worked for the private sector and their intent was to impede the passage of company improvements. They would be fired.
There should be a Hall Of Political Shame so these politicians are reminded by their grandkids of the incompetence they gave the citizenry.
Bad AZZ there is a TWO PARTY system for a reason. 1. Party.....tax and spend Democrats. 2. Party.... fiscally responsible Republicans(except "reach around from behind across the aisle RHINO's and NO Bush was not "conservative").
You got your Democrats like Harry Reid(D) who demands COMPROMISE, which his definition is "every Republican backed Legislation(bill) is DOA".
Despite liberal media SPIN Republicans are not the only ones who refuse to compromise.
You see the term COMPROMISE means a two way street, ....and by keeping a Republican controlled Congress in place,
the voters sent a message to the Democrats as well ..........that they must NEGOTIATE .....not MANDATE.....that is the MANDATE.
The voters also increased the senate lead for democats and took several seats from repuyblicans in the house so using your logic even more Americans voted for progress and not more of the same from the ignorant racist reichwing...but thanks for playing with the big kids
But Republicans still CONTROL Congress...........RICK......(not a big kid)..still playing with his...worn out deck of race cards.........so play with this!.....but thanks for proving my point ......about Democrat COMPROMISE.
No they control the house. Democrats control the senate. You see congress is made up of 2 houses.
I keep saying the same thing over and over again.
We the voters are complicit in what is happening in Washington.
Republicans blame Obama supporters for re-electing him, claiming that it is stupid to keep trying the same thing over and over again, hoping for a different outcome. Dont we all do this in sending back the same people to the House and Senate year after year, with the hopes that it will be different?
If this is not proof that there needs to be term limits for all elected officials, then we are doomed to remain in this trench for the foreseeable future.
What makes anyone think that the NUMBER of bills passed by any congress is a measure of its productivity? The variables that should be used to measure such are many, complex, and certainly subjective. That said...there's no doubt that congresses over the last decade or two, in general, have produced a cesspool of self-serving porkbarrel tripe. We need LESS legislation and that which we should have should serve our COUNTRY - not individual persons, corporations, organizations, political bodies, or states.
I know, even if you Dems don't, that "your" president will take us over the fiscal cliff, then blame it all on the Republicans, who have tried and tried to work on the national debt and a way to cut taxes to increase jobs. Your "assclowne" will not - and YOU and I will pay for YOUR stupidity and your belief in "Entitlements" and the belief that you can tax your way back to solvency.
2014 can't come fast enough. Voted straight BLUE for the first time ever this November, and it looks like I'm going to do it AGAIN!
Less bills passed mean fewer restrictions on our freedom. This is a bad thing? At least they got all the pork passed! Keep making America proud Congress!
The boner led congress is setting all kinds of records for infantile futility...kind of like republicans in general...
Time for a Re-vamp of Congressional representation. We have too many dinosaurs and too many inept politicians in Congress on both sides. We need to demand term limits (up to 3 terms of 3 years each), increase the annual salary for each term ($200K term 1, $400K term 2, $700K term 3) in order to attract better qualified candidates and incentivize them to ACTUALLY PERFORM their duties, and cut out the life long loop holes, tax breaks and health insurance benefits after serving.
HORSE HOCKEY! Until we take away the ability for conresss to define their own salaries and have access to benefits the geneneal public does not (like a LIFETIME full salary pension for serving ONE, I say ONE term....how would YOU like to hold a job with that benny?) we will attract nothing but self serving @#$%holes. We need STATESMEN who serve because they truly want to help their country - not line their own pockets!
Truth.. I also think that when Congress and the Senate want a raise, they need to put it to the voters, and not themselves to vote on it.
If you work for a business, you cannot arbitrarilly decide.... "I want a raise this year, so I am voting one in for myself."
One Dube - I agree with the rest of your comment. I would also eliminate their ability to vote their own salaries. But we have to pay enough salary for to attract qualified, successful executives and professionals that would make fantastic statemesmen to justify temporarily uprooting their daily jobs and families to serve our country for up to nine years. Presently politicians are making money from lobbyists, unions, and secret deals that don't serve the interest of the people they are supposed to be representing.
Truth - I agree we must, of course, provide adequate compensation. True statesmen wil not accept a penny from other sources attempting to curry favor for their own interests.
I see new faces in congress 2014.
Gossamer
Sadly, there will be very few. A good deal of the incumbents run unopposed or with no serious challenge.
And so your version of "statesmen serving" and "helping their country" is spending taxpayers money Obama-Claus asks for.....even if it is unsustainable,
fixes nothing(except temporarily) and leads to further debt? And thats a PLAN?????? Taking away all the money from the rich....and Congress salaries.....will not put a dent in entitlement spending....you are vilifying the wrong PEOPLE.
"...spending taxpayers money Obama-Claus asks for.....even if it is unsustainable,"
Excuse me?? What did I say that implies such?
CONGRESS pases legislation - not the President. Further, of all people, our President should also be a statesman of the hightest calibre!
Why is passing more laws considered "productive" - seems to me we have too many to follow now - more consolidation and repeal would be more productive for society than more and more constraints
Passing useless laws that dont address any of the real issues this country faces give the illusion that our elected officials are working.
I totally agree razzle. The fact that Congress has passed fewer laws than in previous sessions is a benefit to Americans. We have way too many laws, and most laws that are passed further restrict the freedom of citizens. Congress should be evaluating existing laws and removing the ones that are unnecessary. A net of fewer laws would mean a true productive Congress.
You have to pass a law to remove a law.
So by both standards, this Congress has done nothing.
Actually, the sad part is either in their own minds they either think they are doing a good job or just don't care. The Democrat political majority think they have won the productivity argument by passing Obamacare, regardless of any other good or bad laws passed.
One side note.
I think that if a sitting President wins re-election, the inauguration for the second term should be much smaller in scale so as to not waste so much taxpayer money. Have your big celebration the first time, and make it low key the second.
The inauguration ceremony in 2009 cost more than $150 million. I know it is a drip of water vapor in the ocean that is our debt, but it is something.
Just a thought.
If a sitting President get re-elected, there should be no new inauguration. Have him take the oath and get back to work.
At this point, with the ongoing Benghazi scandal we aren't 100% sure if Obama or Biden will the the one getting inaugurated as President.
Why don't we grade Congress by whether or not they fulfill their Constitutionally mandated responsibilities? If we did that, the Pelosi led house would get an F for not even producing a budget bill in her final year as speaker. The current Senate would get an F for not voting on any budget produced by the House.
Until we we hold congress accountable for doing their job we will get exactly what we deserve.
The republicans would get F for filibusters and for not attempting to pass any jobs bills. so on and on we go. Tony your full of sh..t
markin. What a load of garbage.
The American Jobs Act did not garner enough support in the House or Senate. Moderate Democrats in both the House and the Senate opposed the bill as they felt there was too much spending included in the bill, which was originally touted by the administration as being deficit neutral, which as it turned out, would not be the case if the bills had gone through as proposed, and why it did not receive enough support to be brought to the floor for a full vote.
Infact it was none other than Harry Reid that stalled the bill in the Senate, and then amended the bill to include a 5% tax surcharge on those making $1,000,000 or more, which is utimately why the bill never got enough support.
The Obama Administration then split the original bill into three separate smaller bills which also failed to garner enough support to proceed. While the Jobs Act included some good points, the rush to pass it (more than two and a half years into the Presidents first term) were politically motivated. His approval numbers were falling, and unemployment was still at around 9%, so by saying on national television "I urge Congress to immediately pass the Jobs Act" he was grandstanding to make it look like this was his top priority.
If it were truly his top priority, why did this bill come to Congress in Sept of 2011, and not May of 2009?
You too are full of bullsh...The bill never got a hearing in the house. The house never put forth their own bills. No conference committee ever met on any jobs bills. The republicans tried to pass any jobs bill, none. zero.
Why do you think the republican got creamed in this election?
I know everyone on this blog hates Republican's, but for a moment lets use some commen sense. The President campaigned on raising taxes on the "rich" and controlling spending (which includes "entitlements"). Now he wants the tax hike, but refuses to even discuss spending. Both parties have failed this country, not just the Republicans.
TRUTH... I agree we must, of course, offer adequate compensation. True statesmen will not take a dime from other sources attempting to curry favor for their interests.
Congress may not be passing laws. But the Obama Administration just made 6,000 NEW REGULATIONS! Who needs a Congress when you can do that.
One of those regulation allows the EPA to deny oil leases to irresponsible companies like BP. Thank god for good regs.
Those regs also closed down a Shell Platform in the Arctic AFTER the EPA initially gave it's OK and Shell spent in the neighborhood of 1.5 Billion on the Platform. Those regs are also raisng the cost of Solar Farm production in my County. They are digging up Giant Kangaroo Rat burrows trapping the rats and moving them to another location. This is being done at the cost of $67 million. Guess who pays for that. There are litterally thousands of those pests in the California Valley(Carriso Plain)
edit
litterally = literally
Better to be cautious when it comes to oil exploration - wouldn't you agree?
Guess what folks - if you're that unhappy with the job your Congressmen are doing... RECALL them. You put them there, you CAN take them out. Of course, this means getting off your sofas, putting down the remote, and taking action, but you can do it. If you're not in the process of recalling them, then you're obviously pleased with what they're doing (or not doing, as the case may be).
Of course, on the flip side, I have to wonder, really wonder, if we actually NEED X number of new laws every year. Seems to me we have plenty of laws already, and they seem to be doing a fairly decent job. Granted, by not piling new laws on top of new laws on top of new laws, we do lose a few things - our lawyers will not have to spend so much retraining, our states may lose out on new ways to extort money.. err, leverage fines, and the publicists of books of Revised Code may have to print an edition of Reprinted Code, but then... is that really so bad either?
Arrest and jail the triumvurate of McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor, and abolish Congress.
Another informative and fact filled comment from the peanut gallery moving the debate forward.....
Yes... in bizzaroworld it is all the Republicans fault. Dont actually pay attention to reality... just spew nonsense.
It takes two to tango, and remember.... The Democrats controlled the House and Senate from 2006 until the end of 2009 and what did they accomplish?
The answer is in the article, politicoguy.
110th: 460
PolarBear
The number of bills passed says nothing. What was in them. What did they address?
As I said before, just passing a bill that addresses nothing means nothing and is window dressing pure and simple.
You are aware that Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) has been holding back a lot of the bills before the Senate because he knows there is not enough support, but he isnt labled an obstructionist is he?
Irving...I'm curious....are you from China, Cuba N. Korea or Venezuela? To think like you do is certainly un-American.
Are you also willing to arrest and jail Barack Obama and GW Bush for authorizing expansion of our deficit to unrecoverable levels and causing irreparable harm to America?
Either the 18% number is bogus or the people of the United States are truly stupid. All but one incumbent congressman was voted back into office in this latest 2012 election.
I think more than one incumbent lost, as the Democrats picked up 7 or 8 seats, and there were seats on both sides that switched.
The people are stupid. The election proved that. Even more stupid than I suspected.
This is a good example of why I stopped supporting the Republican party. They have been taken over by the garbage of our priveleged citizens, willing to be obstructionists, regardless of the costs to their fellow citizens, because their wealth shields them from the end results.
I guess you just started paying attention to what happens in Congress in the past year?
Obstructionism happens on both sides. Just because a certain bill fails to get enough support doesnt mean that one party is opposed to that particular bill. The original bill may have been amended in such a way to include something that is totally unpalatable to a particular voting block, but we the public dont really get to see that because too much of the inner workings of our government are behind closed doors.
Brilliant comment Johnny Libtard. Your buddy Harry Reid has refused to bring even one bill from Republicans up for a vote. Take off your lib-colored glasses and tell us who the real obstructionists are. Of course, you won't hear this here at lib central, will you?
Oh, well business as usual
Great news less governmental pressure. At last, less does not need to necessarily say that the congress was non-productive. Let just say they now have fewer reasons to try and control our lives!
That is about right for congress when the leader of the country doesn't know how to lead. He might be a great organizer, a great bull@!$%#ter, a good basketball player, and gets more gulf games in 4 yrs than all the other presidents did in the last 16 yrs, but he is still not a leader. He lies, goes to great lengths to seal his thesis from college. He know the constitiution and thereby bypasses congress when he can. He divides the country with racism, gets to voice his opinion on local levels and then wants to drink a beer. Congress just can seem to get to a point of cutting welfare, medicare, and social security. They do want to rasie their wages and benefits since they will not be participating in Obamacare. Defund Obamacare is my wish...I am already seeing next yr raise I get for working with the union, fly out toward the capital and pay interest on the high debt we got. Make government smaller...see what happens.
With all due respect to the "brilliant" people here at PMSNBC, is the measure of Congress really all about how many laws they can pile on top of the mountain of laws already on the books? Do we really need more laws? I would think a Congress would better serve us by spending their time removing a good deal of laws. I understand the liberals like law after law after law, but really, are they all necessary? Take off the lib-colored glasses and see what's really good for our country - Freedom.
at a time when the united states is facing some of the biggest economic, social, and international issues it has ever faced a functioning government might be helpful. the amount of laws created in and of itself is not a measure of success, but a measure of functionality. when laws are created it means the process is working. when a time of great change and challenge grips us and the very ability to cope with these challenges is rendered disfunctional on purpose by one party in attemptes to thwart another parties "success" is wrong. republicans build all their arguments on the lowest common denominator of greed. they figure everyone is out for themselves and government should use this to control them. liberals see government as a force for the people, the rule of law is contrary to an individuals wants. it provides protection to its citizens while taking away some rights like revenge, or arbitraty justice. The U.S. is built on the social contract, if you do know or understand what that is then just leave. government is the rule of man by man.....
Frankly, I don't think of creating laws as being terribly functional. There are far more important goals Congress should be focusing on, like cutting spending, creating a budget, etc, that do not require any new laws. But those would require a President who leads rather than tells.