Two bills introduced yesterday in Congress would require pilots to avoid distractions when they’re flying planes.

Sounds like a good idea! And it sounds like Congress is surfing the headlines!

It’s what we call “wakerider” legislation, when Congress jumps in on the latest news, offering a “fix”—often too late.

Of course, it was just last week that some Northwest pilots overshot their destination by 150 miles because they were on their laptops, distracted.

Congress to the rescue!

S. 2732 would require the Federal Aviation Administration to prohibit the use of portable electronic devices in the cockpit of commercial aircraft during flight and to conduct a study of the safety impact of distracted pilots. S. 2745 would prohibit the use of personal wireless communications devices and laptop computers by the flight crew of commercial aircraft on the flight deck during flight.

We’re all opposed to airline pilots being distracted. And the incident in question has pretty much made clear that camping on your laptop while you’re flying a commercial airliner is a no-no.

Did anyone think it was OK before? And does anyone actually think that having a new law about it—after the fact—is going to make a difference in pilots’ behavior? When some pilots screw up again, will Congress pass a law barring pilots from screwing up?

The point here, of course, is that Congress is trying to assert its relevance to everything that happens in the country. Should these bills pass, every time a plane doesn’t crash, we’ll have our federal legislators to thank!

With the illness formerly known as “swine flu” splashed across the headlines all through the last week, it’s no surprise to see Congress surfing the issue.

S. 953, introduced on Friday, would establish “programs and activities to increase influenza vaccination rates through the provision of free vaccines.”

It’s hard to know whether free vaccines meet the problem of new strains of influenza, but what the heck. Congress is coming to the rescue!

Here’s the current vote on S. 953. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article on the bill.

H.J. Res. 41 proposes an amendment to the Constitution barring the President from entering into a treaty to adopt an international currency. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner made news recently when he said something about being amenable to an international currency.

Everyone’s abuzz about the bonuses being paid out to AIG employees, some reaching above $1 million.

And Congress is there on the case, chasing down the money that . . . it is responsible for putting out there in the first place.

(Yes, yes, AIG money was a loan from the Fed, not TARP – but Congress is responsible for them all.)

So here is a bill to impose higher taxes on bonuses paid by businesses that are owned by the federal government (like AIG is now).

And, speaking of TARP, here’s a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received from companies receiving TARP funds.

Let’s not be shy with the taxing: here’s a bill to put a 90% tax on bonuses paid by business that receive TARP assistance.

In case that’s not enough, here’s another to put a 100% tax on bonuses paid by businesses that receive TARP assistance and are majority owned by the Federal Government.

Don’t worry folks. Congress is on the case! Chasing the headlines – and the fatcats that it gave all that cat food to.

Update: Here’s another bill along the same lines.

This past week, we saw news of a skirmish between Chinese and U.S. boats in the South China Sea. Five Chinese ships harassed and maneuvered close to a U.S. Navy ship, the USNS Impeccable.

The Impeccable sprayed one ship with water from fire hoses to force it away. Its crew members stripped to their underwear, according to news reports, and came to within 25 feet of the U.S. ship.

Not sure what’s up with the stripping down business, but Congress is weighing in on what is a serious incident on one of the world’s most important strategic waterways. H. Con. Res. 72 is a concurrent resolution introduced last week to condemn any action of the People’s Republic of China that could unnecessarily escalate tensions between China and the U.S., including the South China Sea skirmish.

Here’s the current vote on H. Con. Res. 72. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article about the bill.

There’s nothing like headlines to get Congress’ attention. And the furor over the crazed chimp that mauled a woman in Connecticut last week has piqued our national legislature’s interest.

On Monday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 80, the Captive Primate Safety Act. It would add nonhuman primates (monkeys, great apes, lemurs, etc.) to the definition of “prohibited wildlife species” in the law that prohibits the purchase or sale of such species. And yesterday, a companion bill was introduced in the Senate.

Now, versions of this legislation were introduced in previous Congresses, so these bills weren’t just slapped together for show. But bills that move in response to headline news should get a special second look. It’s the time when Congress is the least likely to be careful, and when the bill’s proponents will take advantage of headlines to roll their opposition. We call this wakeriding.

What’s the right and wrong on this? Should purchase and sale of lemurs be outlawed nationwide for all time because a single chimp went bonkers?

Here are the current votes on H.R. 80 and S. 462, both called the Captive Primate Safety Act. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki articles about the bills.

The beginning of a new Congress always sees a lot of bills that would propose amendments to the Constitution.

That idea always starts with at least one strike against it – that document is not to be trifled with.

But maybe there are some good ideas out there. Let’s take a look:

There are two proposals to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res. 7.

H.J. Res. 2 would provide for the voting rights of citizens in U.S. territories or commonwealths.

H.J. Res. 11 would apportion representatives in Congress according to the number of citizens in each state (as opposed to the entire population, as the Constitution does it now).

H.J. Res. 9 and S.J. Res. 4 would get rid of the electoral college – direct election of the president.

Speaking of elections, S.J. Res. 7 would do away with the practice of governors appointing Senators. (Hello, Blagojevich! Hello wakerider legislation!)

When you’ve got people elected, what are you going to do with them? S.J. Res 1 would limit the terms of Members of Congress and Senators to twelve years – six terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Meanwhile, H.J. Res. 5 would repeal the term limit (of two terms, or eight years) on the president.

H.J. Res. 15 would give the president the line-item veto, meaning he could cross out items in spending bills rather than having to take an entire bill as Congress passes it.

And H.J. Res. 6 would do away with citizenship by birth on U.S. soil.

There are a few more proposed constitutional amendments, but we’ll come back to them in a later post.

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways for amendments to be proposed and approved: If both houses of Congress approve an amendment resolution by two-thirds votes, it is proposed, and then it has to be ratified (approved) by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. The other way, which has never been used, is for the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to go into a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. These also require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

Here’s something interesting to note from the raft of bills introduced when Congress returned briefly after the election: A bunch of ‘em were about the financial services bailout. Mostly in the Senate, but with a few examples in the House, bills were introduced to manage how the bailout would work.

Here’s the problem with that: The bailout bill already passed. It’s not in Congress’ control any more. Any bills introduced to affect the bailout amount to trying to lick up spilled milk. Congress is supposed to debate legislation before it passes, not after.

So let’s take a look at the bills and the Senators and Members of Congress who introduced them.

It’s most interesting to see who voted for the bailout, but came up with ideas for how it should work later. That amounts to a confession of voting for a bill without thinking it all the way through, a big no-no when $700 billion in taxpayer money is on the line.

Here are the post-bailout bailout bills, with their sponsors:

(more…)

A good number of bills have been introduced this week to distribute blame and respond to the financial crisis triggered by the failure of the government-sponsored home mortgage enterprises.

“Wakerider” legislation – bills that follow the headlines – deserve some skepticism because the time is ripe for political posturing and other silliness, but some of the bills coming forward might be good.

From the posturing department, there’s H.R. 6987. It would require corporate officers of companies to repay their bonuses during years in which their companies are subject to a taxpayer bailout, and the two preceding years as well.

Fine. We get it. Corporate compensation is high. But even the millions and millions paid to corporate executives is an infinitesimal fraction of the losses at stake in the financial crisis.

Maybe the public needs this symbolism, but I’d rather see Congress put its energy into getting its own house in order. It will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars without oversight this week or next (beyond the financial services bailout money) simply because it didn’t follow regular processes for budgeting and allocating its own spending this year.

From the “Hurry! Close the barn door!” department, there’s H.R. 6853 and S. 3547. The House bill would establish a Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task Force Act in the FBI. The House passed it on Monday. The Senate bill would create a Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Coordinator.

Hmmmm. What about having a “Countrywide” Mortgage Fraud Coordinator to look into the sweetheart mortgage deals some Senators were allegedly getting from that firm? – but that was news a few months ago, wasn’t it. We’ve all forgotten. (Someone hasn’t: S. 3542 was introduced yesterday to require full disclosure of the terms of home mortgages held by Members of Congress.)

From the “Wha’ happan’?” department, there’s H.R. 6990. It would establish an independent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Investigative Commission to investigate the officers and directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible and the decisions that led to the enterprises’ financial instability.

If this thing goes, it had better look at the policy – the implied government backing to these behemoths. The ‘public-private partnership’ – so often such a celebrated concept – is why we’re paying such a huge price now. Maybe “public-private” will come to be recognized as “public losses, private profits.”

And from the “This May Make Some Sense” department, there’s H.R. 6986, which would raise the maximum Federal deposit insurance coverage to $200,000. This seems to update the amounts covered by federal deposit insurance not in response to the crisis, but in response to the possibility that it could be needed. Nice to see someone possibly getting ahead of the curve, rather than following along behind it. But I have to say “least bad” is not high praise . . .

Here’s another “wakerider” bill – legislation introduced on the heels of a newsworthy event – dealing with the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (discussed earlier here and here):

S. 3471, a bill to prohibit government-sponsored enterprises from making lobbying expenditures, political contributions, or other certain contributions. (I’m sure they meant “certain other” contributions.)

This is good, though. Part of the way these organizations shifted the risk of loss to the taxpayer (i.e. you) was by lobbying like crazy, spending something like $174 million on it over the last ten years.

Now, this bill is obviously too little too late. The damage is done and the new regulatory overseer of the Macs has reportedly said “All political activities, including all lobbying, will be halted immediately.” But maybe putting in law will make sure that stays true.

Here’s the current vote on S. 3471. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article about the bill.