Talk:109th United States Congress

From List of Current United States Senators
Favor:
 * It's basically redundant. Redundancy, in these cases, lead to errors.  --Mark Adler 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Disfavor:
 * It might be useful to have an extra article once the 110th United States Congress is the current congress. The redundancy will go away by itself. --Kusma (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Favor: No, the 109th is the current Congress. -- 19:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems pointless to merge the article when the issue will become irrelavent when the 110th congress starts. Also, if a meger where made, it would have to be redone every congress - possibly causing confusion and error. Poobarb 02:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Merging these articles would be a very bad idea. The list of current senators happens to match the list of 109th congress members, but it won't any more once the 110th congress starts, as Poobarb said. Wesley 17:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Result: Merger suggestion cheerfully withdawn.--Mark Adler (Markles)  00:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Congressional Trivia Lists
There are a lot of Presidential Trivia Lists, are there any Congressional trivia lists?

I am about to create a list of Congressional delegations ranked by partisan composition, which will be similar to the chart I created here.

Surely there are other trivia lists that I have overlooked. NoSeptember 20:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Great idea!


 * (Why don't you move (or copy) this discussion/notice to the WikiProject, WikiProject U.S. Congress)? --Mark Adler 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added this topic to the talkpage of that Wikiproject. Thanks for the suggestion.  NoSeptember  23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I created this new article: Partisan mix of congressional delegations. NoSeptember 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Mid-session changes
I'm not sure about the changes you've made today. The article on the 109th Congress, although the current congress, is meant to be a historical article. Thus, I think it ought to be in ascending chronological order. This is a very small picky point, however, so it's okay with me if nobody else minds. Cheers!! &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  02:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point from the historical perspective of the article, but I think the casual user of this article is much more likely to come here because of their interest in what the current make-up in Congress is (eg. Who is my congressman?). When you see a seat # followed by a name, one would assume that is the current congressman.  Once the 109th becomes history, then the order is unimportant, because the user knows that this is not the current congress.  Thats how I perceive it, but if others object, it is no big deal to me. Cheers,  NoSeptember   talk  10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I would argue that perhaps (again, I don't feel strongly about this) it could be made clearer that Person A was the first representative, Person B came next, and now Person C is the latest/current representative.  Sort of like this:


 * Option I:
 * 48. January 3 2005 - August 2 2005: Chris Cox (R), resigned
 * August 3 2005 - December 6 2005: Vacant
 * December 7 2005 - present: John Campbell (R)


 * Option II:
 * 48. January 3 - August 2 2005: Chris Cox (R), resigned
 * August 3 - December 6 2005: Vacant
 * December 7 2005 - present: John Campbell (R)


 * Option III:
 * 48. January 3 - August 2 2005: Chris Cox (R), resigned
 * August 3 - December 6 2005: Vacant
 * December 7 2005 - present: John Campbell (R)


 * Option IV:
 * 48. A. Chris Cox (R), resigned August 2 2005
 * B. Vacant, August 3 2005 - December 6 2005
 * C. John Campbell (R), installed December 7 2005


 * These are ranked in my preference from most preferred (Option I) to least preferred (Option IV).
 * &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  13:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems OK, with the date coming first, that would sufficiently reduce the assumption that the person listed first is the current congressman. I like option 3. Option 1 restates the year too often, which is not necessary in a date range (but would be my second choice). The bold text of option 2 would be out of place, unless all the other currently serving people on the list for the state were also bolded, which could be an option (bolding all 435 current members), but that may be too much. Option 4 does not appeal to me at all. NoSeptember  talk  13:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Option III is best. &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please review Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)
Jimbo Wales has requested that we try to improve Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) for the reasons he stated on Talk:Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). I put in a few hours but can't think of anything else, except a photo or two which we are unlikely to get permissions for over the weekend. Please see if you can improve the article any further. --James S. 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bob Menendez
Is Bob Menendez a Senator or not? It says in 109th Congress article that he resigned on Jan. 17, but in the Bob Menendez article it says he is a Senator, appointed by Corzine. Jack Daw 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He is a Senator. He resigned his House seat.&mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  21:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Profile
We need a profile for this Congress more than a trivia page. How many Republicans, females, minorities, average ages, previous occupations, religion, etc..

House Graphic
The graphic showing percentage of party affiliation in the House by state needs to be fixed: whoever made it couldn't get Alabama and Mississippi straight.
 * I have alerted the image's creator. &mdash;Markles 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New Members
It would be interesting to know which representatives and senators are new to Congress, perhaps by adding year of election next to names or something. Jack Daw 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it will take a while. There are also charts and tables that show this information.  Chadlupkes 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Where? :D Jack Daw 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template on Reps
Would anyone object if I used the same template on representatives as there is on senators - in taking office, primarily? Jack Daw 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something like this:

Jack Daw 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think it's excessive in an otherwise already large article.  It doesn't add more to the article and it creates a lot of unnecessary tables. —Markles 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it'd be great. You get much more information at a glance, and it improves the page dramatically.  On the other hand, it looks like a lot of effort, but if you're up to it, great.

Size
This page had become much too big. See Article size. It was 143 kilobytes.

So I moved the tables on members to List of current members of the United States House of Representatives and List of current United States Senators where they look a lot better and seem to fit better too.

This page is now 54 kilobytes.—Markles 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposition
Now that the 109th Congress is drawing to a close I think we need to add a picture of Comic Book Guy at the bottom, with a caption that reads "Worst. Congress. Ever."

Please see "Days in Session" for additional discussion on amending the "Major Events" section on the main page.Happysomeone 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No 3rd session
According to, it's clear that House meetings after an election (see 2004) are considered part of the 2nd session, not a new 3rd session. Also, from, it says "Congressional leaders discontinued the use of third sessions by the end of the 1930s. The ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933, provided for Congress to assemble on or about the third day of January rather than the traditional March start date. Third sessions, which generally had run from December to March, no longer were necessary." Simon12 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any information about why the 110th Congress does not take office on the third day of January (today), but instead starts on the fourth. Presumably this also means that the 109th Congress remains in office a day longer.  This lengthening of the term (due to Gerald Ford's death?  what else could it be, since today is not Sunday?) should be mentioned somewhere.--Bhuck 10:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:110th United States Congress for why Congress starts on Jan 4. Also, the Constitution says the old congress ends on Jan 3, regardless of when the new one starts. Again, see Talk:110th United States Congress for more details. Simon12 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

End of Second Session
It ended on December 9, not December 8. I was watching the Senate on C-SPAN2 until at least 2 in the morning on December 9. Valadius 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This raises the issue of weather we want the ending dates of all sessions of congress on the wiki to be actual calendar dates (EST) or ending legislative dates. The legislative day doesn't end until congress adjorns, and so if they are still in session at 2 AM on the 9th, it's still the legislative day of the 8th. Jon 19:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that we should go with whatever the Senate Calendar decides to do. In this case (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/calendars/dailysenate/2006/sc18de.pdf) they went with Dec. 9 meamemg 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Days in Session?
How long was this Congress in session. I ask because I heard (but wanted proof) it was the shortest Congress since the 'Do-Nothing Congress." True? Paul, in Saudi 14:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The 109th has been widely panned by the media and this is one of the main reasons, as well adjourning without passing a budget in 2006 and never saying no to the president. Perhaps the header here above should be changed to "Do-Nothing Congress." I note that the moniker Pres. Truman first bequeathed the 80th Congress is mentioned on the Wikipedia page for it. This modern attribution/appropriation should be viewed in the same light and also considered as an addition to the main page.Happysomeone 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, in Saudi: After some preliminary searches on the internet, I came up with this USA Today editorial, dated Dec. 11, 2006. In it, the article confirms that the 109th Congress was in "Legislative Session" (that is, met in their chambers in Capitol Hill) for 242 days, adjourning Saturday, Dec. 9, 2006. The infamous 80th "Do-Nothing" Congress met for 254 days in session, therefore (based on the article) your supposition that the 109th was the "shortest Congress since the Do-Nothing Congress" is correct. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/post_22.html#more Happysomeone 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress
Please merge any relevant content from [ Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress] per Articles for deletion/Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:16Z 
 * See this related comment. NoSeptember  00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing VRA extension
The major pieces of legislation is missing the extenstion of the expiring portions of the VRA (most notably section 5 dealing with pre clearance section) from 2007 for 25 years to 2032. In addition the standards for preclearance were also changed to match the standards for section 2 dealing with racial gerrymandering challenges. Jon 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The new "Do-Nothing Congress"?
On the eve of adjourning I recall several commentators (news anchors, reporters, editorials and non-partisan policy analysts ) lambasting this session as equally bad, if not more so, as the 80th Congress for many of the same historical reasons. The same phrase, "Do-Nothing Congress," was used. As I've previously noted on the talk page, this pejorative is mentioned on the 80th Congress entry at the end of the "Major Legislation" section. Therefore, I propose a similar entry could be added noting this display of public displeasure with the 109th Congress. Comments? Happysomeone 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Markles- Thanks for your edit on the main page. I'd like your feedback on a proposed change I'm working on which I think is a little more informative than your addition. I see the page is already quite large, so I'll try to keep it succinct. I'll post my proposal here in a few hours.... Kind RegardsHappysomeone 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears a wikipedia user using the handle "Neutrality" as altered an edit I made to the "109th Congress" page and I am curious why. It appears the edit has 1) deleted or removed relevant information regarding and relating to the historic "Do-Nothing Congress" reference, 2) inserted an out-of-context POV quotation, tangentially related to one of the sources cited and 3) is incorrectly sourced. I would prefer to discuss changes before changes are made. Neutrality, if you're monitoring this, please repond. --Happysomeone (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reduced the discussion of Do Nothing Congress in the Major Events section in this article. What I've left is sufficient.  This article does not merit long discussions of debatable issues.  That would belong better in Do Nothing Congress.—Markles 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Markles, looks good.--63.236.113.134 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

miscellaneous facts sections
Please see the discussion I started at Talk:110th United States Congress. —Markles 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/519951.html
 * In 109th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:06:19, 404 Not Found
 * In 109th United States Congress on 2011-05-31 22:24:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

HR 6407 or PubL 109-435
I'm not sure if anybody is checking this page, but I went looking for info regarding the named law (109-435) on Wikipedia and found a reference in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Regulatory_Commission#Postal_Regulatory_Commission

However, when I went to find the same reference under the 109th Congress article (this one) there doesn't seem to be a reference to this law. Is this an oversight, or is there some reason this isn't listed under the Major Legislation: Enacted section?

In case anybody's curious, this law seems to have caused a current political issue which is having an effect on postal service funding, which is why I went looking for information regarding the issue. Have not yet found a wiki article related to this specific issue though.

Related Links: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ435/html/PLAW-109publ435.htm http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.6407: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c1090gUO0o:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.159.67 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You can add it, if you want. WP:BB! —GoldRingChip 12:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 109th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901124217/http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/LegislativeStudies/?view=usa&ci=9780195174465 to http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/LegislativeStudies/?view=usa&ci=9780195174465

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 109th United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806224819/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/109publ.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/109publ.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)