Congress was "Reformed" in the 70s and I don't think that would be possible. Before that, I think everyone was expected to be in their respective seats on the floor every day, but due to the reforms after Watergate, they don't have to show up unless they intend to vote on an issue.
Just for my own curiosity’s sake, I am going to have to find out for sure. It seems to me that even though we’re on a governmental shutdown, Congress is still active. If a vote were called for in the House and if someone didn’t come back to vote it would be called a “no vote” and of course not counted. There has to be a reason why the House minority leader isn’t calling for a vote other than for ethical reasons. Lord knows, there’s very little ethical doings in the government and forcing through a vote really wouldn’t be that bad of a thing to do. After all, quite a few members of congress ran to Puerto Rico under the auspices of having a “meeting” aka a fun in the sun tax payer paid vacation (a ploy often used by Obama for his golf trips), there’s no reason why another set of ethics can’t be violated as well if indeed, it’s an issue of ethics.
Congress is still "active" in one sense--they can work as long as they aren't on recess. I think you misunderstood my post. Congress had to be on the floor when it was in session, not hiding in their offices. Now they can hide in their offices during discussion and debate, and only show up on the floor when a vote is taken. I am sure that is, in part, why so many irresponsible actions are taken.
I have often noticed that most, if not all, of the seats are empty when a person is speaking. I thought maybe they were all taking a potty break.
That was what I was talking about, @Shirley Martin. They used to have to sit in their seats during debates; now most just skip them as their minds are already made up and they don't want to listen to what the other side has to say. Same with the filibuster in the Senate, although that change was much farther back. The filibuster was allegedly copied from something used in the British Parliament that traced its roots back to the Roman Senate. The filibuster was originally designed to allow debate to continue until there was nothing relevant to say on the topic at hand, but it developed into an instrument used to actually stop debate rather than allow it to continue. The change probably took place around slavery issues early in the 19th century, but I am not sure of that. It certainly was used extensively in blocking Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. Anyway, not having to listen to the arguments made by the "other side" is partially responsible for the polarization that we see today (my opinion only).
I think all that is just to create the illusion that they are doing something. You know, let each speaker impress his folks back home. The deals are likely made in back rooms.
Get ready for national popcorn day January 19 this is also one month of government shut down now they can start removing people and downsizing the government, A celebration maybe?
What have you got to celebrate? I can't understand your zeal for a country not your own, particularly it's movement in a particular direction. I'll bore you with a story, if I may. Years ago, when I was a 17 year old college sophomore I was active in it's anti-war movement. There was a 'boy', tall, with big red beard, big long red hair, really stood out, who was always screeching for violence on our part. Signs and marching, chanting & singing couldn't satisfy him. Turns out he was FBI, got exposed at last. Brother was a NYC cop, think he was traced through his brother. Just a story, just a trip down memory lane. I must be getting old. I love cops now and they love me back.
This is one of the things that I have been reading about also, @Martin Alonzo , and it looks like (once again) our “stable genius “ of a President has shuffled things around so that , no matter what, he gets an outcome that he wants. If the liberals refuse to let go of the shut down and approve the wall, then in a few more days, it will have been over a 30 day furlough, and once that timeframe has passed, then government offices can start a RIF (reduction in force) and weed out some of the unnecessary government workers that simply don’t do much besides collect their paychecks; but can’t be outright fired. If they don’t want to lose supporters by the RIF, they will have to agree to stopping the shutdown before the 30 days has expired. As you say, it is time to make the popcorn, and see which choice they make. Since they know that they do not want the shut down to go on for a long time, I am guessing that they will agree to the wall, because that outcome seems inevitable at some point. And we know, they were all in favor of the wall up until President Trump actually wanted to build it.