Talk:United States Congress/Archive 4

Low approval rating
I understand the idea of recentism but I think the extremely low approval ratings of Congress -- 5% -- of a body which is supposed to represent the will of the American people -- is substantive, important, passes the "five year test", and is not just a passing freaky datapoint but important for anybody researching the US Congress to know about. Low ratings have been an issue for the past few decades; it is particularly low now with the gridlock and shutdown, so I think leaving this information out of the lede paragraph would be misleading.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The first few sentences of an article are supposed to give the most basic overview—the more important and complex the topic, the broader the overview. So yes, while I agree that Congress's horrific approval ratings are important information, there's no way in Hell they're important enough to take up this article's second sentence.  If people start talking about convening a Constitutional convention over this, or overthrowing the government, or if this sparks literally unprecedented massive internal reforms in Congress, then maybe I'd support so prominent a mention, but this country's been around for 230 years, and not a single other political trend is mentioned in the lede. —  PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  14:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think extremely low approval ratings are highly important, relevant, much more than a political trend, but a serious sign of major dysfunction in terms of the larger historic role in American politics. Congress's inability to compromise could precipitate worldwide financial fuss beginning October 17th. Not a pimple; it's a political tumor.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking personally here—Tom-to-Tom, if you will—I agree with you that the government is falling apart and that Constitutional reform is needed. I hope the next congressional elections are decided litmus-test on what Congressmen did or didn't do to prevent the sequester, shutdown, and possible impending default. When it comes to the current events here, you are preaching to the choir. But this article isn't about current events. It's about a 224-year-old institution that has seen countless financial crises, that has authorized 24 military engagements, that has passed laws affecting billions of lives, and, for that matter, either shortening or prolonging millions of lives. What you're saying is that this is important, that this is very very important. It is, for sure. But there are literally thousands of things that Congress has done that are important, and probably dozens that would qualify on par with the ongoing crisis for "high importance." There's a very high threshold for mentioning individual events in the ledes of articles like this, and I don't think the approval ratings come even close to meeting it. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see somewhat your point but here is another way of figuring what goes in a lede paragraph: suppose an alien comes from another planet, and wants to know what is Congress? What five points maybe would you make about it? Something like: (1) legislature (2) senators + representatives, numbers (100, 535etc) (3) exists in system of checks and balances (4) powers - purse, budget, etc (5) elected to represent Americans. This last point: untrue. It doesn't represent Americans; it is gridlocked by partisanship. 95% disapprove. Congress is out to lunch. Its lunch-mindedness could cause a totally unnecessary worldwide financial mess. It goes to Congress' fundamental purpose -- legislating -- it is not doing its job -- it is important information in my view. Leaving it out would be unfair to the poor alien who might blip the wrong signals back to its home planet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing. Recentism should not really apply to a sentence or two but rather to the whole article. The idea is to prevent a situation in which the whole article is bent towards a recent event; I don't think that applies in this case. Here is the wording on Recentism:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in: Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus. Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer."

- from Wikipedia page on recentism.


 * Wondering what others think, about the lede. Perhaps focusing on the low poll numbers, in themselves, doesn't belong in the lede para per se -- I see how it does seem rather trivial in comparison with the other main overview points. But I am wondering what others think about including a sentence in the lede paragraph, possibly, to the effect that Congress is rather dysfunctional -- this I think is an important theme suitable for the entire article, in the overview, and things like low poll numbers, partisanship, gerrymandering, in-office-for-life, lobbying, inability to do something as simple as raise a debt ceiling, and so forth are signs of this. Like, if an 8th grader wanted to know about Congress, for a report, say, this is something he or she should need to know, along with other overview points (size, composition, place in federal govt, powers, etc). Wondering what others think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Public dissatisfaction with Congress
(note: subject related to last thread) My well-referenced addition about low public satisfaction with Congress was reverted with a comment that it does not belong in the lede paragraph. I disagree. Omitting public dissatisfaction would be like having an article on elephants, where the lede conveys that they're grey, have trunks, live in Africa, have tusks, while omitting their large size. As a result, the current article appears amateurish; political reporters looking over this article may not trust the rest of it, based on the current lede. I challenge BBB23 to show a wikilink to any article in any respectable newspaper which praises Congress. The current lede paragraph does have some necessary information about the structure and purpose of Congress, but some rather unnecessary details too, such as ''Each staggered group of one-third of the senators are called 'classes'. No state of the United States has two senators from the same class.''. Further, the following statement is essentially misleading members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms representing the people of a district -- they are supposed to represent their districts but to a much greater extent congresspersons represent the interests of lobbyists. Further, this statement is also misleading -- Both representatives and senators are chosen through direct election -- yes there are direct elections, but the fact that almost all incumbents who run for reelection are, in fact, reelected (90%+), means congresspersons are not really in office because they win in competitive elections; they are in office for life, many serving there for decades. Omitting crucial details like these makes the article look like it was written in the 1950s for eighth graders and needs to be fixed or else tagged for violating neutrality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that having information about public opinions about Congress is important and relevant to this article. The material you've found would definitely fit in under the 6.1.4 "public perceptions of congress" section. That's probably a section that could use expansion, possibly using polling data from the last few decades that are available. However, I think I also agree with those above that specific polling information about how Congress is perceived in 2013/2014 is not lede worthy on this article. This article is about all US Congresses, not just the most recent one. Your polling data might be lede worthy on the article specific to the 113th Congress, however. As for political reports, I'd like to believe they know enough about Congress not to have to look up basic information about it. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe the polling information could go in the body of the article in the section which you said, but low approval ratings is not just something about the current Congress, but rather marks a sad trend over the past few decades which is unlikely to change. The bigger, underlying issue is this: Congress is supposed to be the public's voice in government; but less than 10% of the public thinks it is doing a satisfactory job -- this is not a under-the-rug bound detail but indicates substantial dysfunctionality. It is not just reporters who may see Wikipedia as unreliable if they glance at the lede paragraph here, but people who observe US politics, including politicians and even (yes) congresspersons.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be better to create a table or chart from ? EllenCT (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting data. I think it would be a good idea to post this somewhere in the article. If there is agreement that mentioning a specific poll result does not belong in the lede paragraph, I still believe that there should be a mention of public dissatisfaction with Congress in the lede -- leaving that out seems to violate neutrality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You could put this under criticism? Most wiki's about companies and businesses have a topic on this. 198.209.6.101 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)PxS

Update new congress after Nov. 4, 2014 elections
The sidebar information and graphics still reflect data after the previous election in 2012. This needs to be updated after the most recent election on 11/4/14. I'm not sure if there are any anachronistic errors in the article itself; I only noticed the sidebar.

2602:306:8017:5910:3922:1101:1F0A:87B0 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection
Because of the level of vandalism at this page - recurrent over a long period of time, but not extremely frequent - I have put it under pending changes protection for 6 months. Let's see how it works. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080801095524/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/presidentbush/2008/07/cheney-plame-ag.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/07/cheney-plame-ag.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101205015731/http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/ to http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on United States Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101110035120/http://projects.washingtonpost.com:80/congress/members/k000105/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000105/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100730041548/http://www.powells.com:80/review/2006_10_26.html to http://www.powells.com/review/2006_10_26.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090925161026/http://www.bsos.umd.edu:80/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/levinson0107.htm to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/levinson0107.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509065952/http://www.llsdc.org/crs-congress/ to http://www.llsdc.org/crs-congress/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080408220824/http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/sess-cong.pdf to http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/wysiwyg/544/sess-cong.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

women in the US congress
who was the first woman elected to the US Congress ? (and when was that ?)

Who was the first non-white woman elected to the US Congress ? (Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman; she had a seat from 1969-1983).

Aren't there figures / quotas how many % of the congressmen are women ? --Neun-x (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Neun-x! You might want to take a look at Women in the United States House of Representatives.
 * The first woman elected to Congress was Jeannette Rankin in 1916.
 * I think Chisholm was probably the first woman of color.
 * There are certainly not "quotas" for women in congress, but the demographics of congress are readily available via a quick Google search. BTW did you catch the irony when you asked how many "congressmen" are women? I would say that no congressmen are women. However, currently 20% of senators and 19.4% of representatives are women. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good observation, MelanieN!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bills fails?
My understanding is tat a bill fails if a period of time passes without approval.

This is true ?

If yes,the time to fail needs to be included in "bills"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Territorial Government sub-sub section
I reworked the WP:OR deleted “devolution” subsection focused on U.S. territories into a “Territorial Government” sub-sub section under Powers of Congress, with reliable sources, leaving out the sovereign states Lost Cause. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS184834%2B19-May-2009%2BPRN20090519
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510101334/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20081022/ai_n30925232/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20081022/ai_n30925232/

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) 08:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20100809032123/http://www.gpoaccess.gov//chearings/about.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/chearings/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204440/http://www.gpoaccess.gov//serialset/creports/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/index.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) 22:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20100924004311/http://womenincongress.house.gov/ to http://womenincongress.house.gov/

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) 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20121101145605/http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

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) 14:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20090905170136/http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95973+02-Sep-2009+BW20090902 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95973+02-Sep-2009+BW20090902
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905170136/http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95973+02-Sep-2009+BW20090902 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS95973+02-Sep-2009+BW20090902

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) 06:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded assertion of control
"The Senate was effectively controlled by a half dozen men."

I don't see any foundation or source for this claim (made at the end of section 2.2, "1830s–1900s: partisan era"). This is my first time properly contributing to Wikipedia, and I don't know whether to remove it myself, ask for opinions, find a source, leave it alone, etc. Any advice?

Tiin57 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Article fails to answer basic question
I've read the whole article and I still don't know the relationship between the House of Representatives and the Senate, why both are needed and what their distinct roles are. It's all rather confusing. The whole article would benefit from improved structure that covers the basics before delving into detail like committees - and I can't even tell whether representatives and/or senators sit on committees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.76.37 (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

the most important information is missing
Neither this article nor the article on the House of Representatives provides the most important information, what electoral system is used! This determines how the political system works and why it works or doesn't. The article on the Senate has at least some info, but not even a chart to make clear what the most common system is.

Even the second most important information, the rules of campaign financing and the influence of campaign financing on the political system, is discussed only shortly and superficially and confusingly in two different parts of this article and not at all in the other articles! --Espoo (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the non-voting members
I 100% agree with including material about the non-voting members of the US Congress in the first paragraph, but right now I think we have gone into way too much detail about where they are from and what their roles are. Unless I get any objections here, I plan to scale down the amount of information in the lead section about the non-voting members to something like the way it's written on the United States House of Representatives page. Feel free to do it yourself. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made that change Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2020
Justin Amash just changed party to libertarian so 1 independent should be libertarian Know ur defs (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. We are waiting for him to officially change his party listing before putting it in the Congress article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(I am the user from above) See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link](https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. Please revert, or allow users to make the appropriate updates.

Amash is officially a libertarian.
As of 4/28/2020, this needs to be edited. Justin Amash (L: Michigan) announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination for President of the United States and joined the Libertarian Party. This makes him *officially* a Libertarian, and not an Independent.

Source: https://reason.com/2020/04/28/justin-amash-is-running-for-president-as-a-libertarian/

> Amash, an F.A. Hayek–quoting five-term incumbent from Grand Rapids and former co-founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, **became a sustaining member of the L.P.** some time over the past two weeks, thus meeting the party's minimum nominating requirements.

Amash is not registered as a Libertarian in Michigan, because [Michigan does not have partisan registration.](https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-5647_12539_29836-88652--,00.html)

Therefore, he is a registered Libertarian, in all paperwork official ways that can be.

Edits towards that end have been made by User:Tktru

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Congress&oldid=953812332 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:(116th)_US_House_of_Representatives.svg&direction=next&oldid=415685315

But they were incorrectly reverted on the basis of the claim by User:Metamorph985 that the membership is not official. However, as my source has shown, the membership IS official.

Additional edits to this page and others need to be made and not reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:7509:8C42:1146:C4D9 (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I reverted the changes. According to the New York Times, "Mr. Sarwark said Mr. Amash, a five-term congressman, would most likely be a formidable candidate to be the party’s standard-bearer. He noted that **if** Mr. Amash changed his affiliation in Congress — from independent to Libertarian — he would be the first member of the House formally aligned with the party." This is the article about the U.S. Congress and it is how he is listed at Congress that matters. His biography page at house.gov shows no change in his party affiliation. The Congress.gov page still lists him as an independent. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(I'm the user above). I think that's a reasonable position. I spoke with someone inside about it, and it seems likely he may in fact file with the clerk of the house. When/if that happens, if the clerk doesn't respond because of the shutdowns, but a reputable source (such as his website) updates that Amash has filed so, is that sufficient to satisfy the changes? What if Amash publicly says "I am officially a Libertarian Party Member" in some interview or on his house page, would that be sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:C9FF:309E:25E0:9CBE (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not for this article. Maybe if he changes his House page, but not if he just says it. This article is about the Congress and how they have him listed. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW here is an extended interview with Amash at NYT. He talks a lot about running for president and unhappiness with the 2-party system, but he does not say he has changed his affiliation to Libertarian. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I saw earlier that he said he would change his party affiliation, but that he hadn't done it as yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

(I'm the user above) So, this isn't enough to satisfy the requirement of it actually being up to date on the House Clerk roll website yet, but I'm posting it to let you know that it will be tomorrow, so a bunch of changes will need to be prepared:  https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/95233764_2609339222725318_5747368765553639424_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=YjwW0JrOZYoAX9wEH0w&_nc_ht=scontent.ftpa1-2.fna&oh=ea9aaa5be33de3108f4d6b4e7f9f00eb&oe=5ED06312  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at his campaign website! It says "Justin Amash is the only independent in the U.S. House of Representatives and is its leading advocate for government restraint." I didn't find the word "Libertarian" anywhere on his campaign website. And all the reporting is that he is just "exploring" whether to run for president as a Libertarian. Maybe he will change it officially, but he hasn't yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(It's me, the user above.) As I said would happen today: If you look on the list of official rolls from the house clerk: (https://www.house.gov/representatives) he has officially updated his filing with the house clerk. [Here is a screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) This is evidence *directly* from the status of his standing with the house clerk, on house.gov, as you requested. It is time to update this page to reflect his official standing, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. His party at the house.gov page has been changed to "L". It can be changed in the article now. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020
   libertarian party (1) Leandromicael123 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , find a source that says Justin Amash has changed his affiliation in Congress to Libertarian, not one that says that he will change his affiliation, and then we'll make the change. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(I am the user from above) See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link](https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. Please revert, or allow users to make the appropriate updates.


 * I concur that he has now changed his registration at house.gov to "L" and someone can make the change. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How to update House chart?
The House of Representatives graphic hasn't been updated with Kweisi Mfume, Tom Tiffany, or Mike Garcia. I'm having trouble navigating the website, can anyone change the Democratic count to 233 and the Republican count to 198? Deadagent03 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Senate composition
As Senator David Perdue (R-GA) has not been re-elected yet, his term expired today. There should be one seat vacant. Jaydenwithay (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be two vacant seats, as both of Georgia's seats will only be filled in tomorrow's run-off elections (so there's only 50 Republican seats for now). --141.100.201.16 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Leadership positions in infobox
Currently, the leadership section of the infobox contains the president of the senate, the president pro tempore, the senate majority leader, the speaker of the house, and the house majority leader. Majority leaders are party positions, not constitutional ones. While it's true that the majority leader is the most powerful person in the senate, they are not actually a leader of the senate. This is even more true for the house majority leader, who not only does not have any constitutional role but isn't even the highest ranking party member in the house (that's the speaker). Therefore, if there are no objections, I'm going to remove the senate and house majority leader positions from the infobox.  Ergo Sum  20:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Originally it only contained those three leadership positions. I believe the two majority leaders were added because the majority leader of the senate is considered a de facto leader of the body. I think the current infobox is fine, though I might choose to have the speaker in the second position. Gust Justice (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BAMSHKAPOW1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible infobox size change
The infobox of the US congress seems unusually wide. This size is not consistent with the infobox sizes of other government bodies on Wikipedia which are at 250px wide, this also includes other US government bodies such as state legislatures.

This is because under "Senate political groups", one of the parties is "Independent (caucusing with Democrats)". Because the text takes so much space, it widens the infobox. I tried putting a "break" command in the middle but some people mentioned it may look strange on some screen resolutions

I suggest we remove the nowrap command from the text so that the infobox is more consistent with that of others.

--Benedikt Aron (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2015 (CET)

It really is a shame that www.congress.gov leads web users to unsecure areas. But, what can one expect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.198.123 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Top section
What on earth is the 'Israeli body' section for? It shouldn't be there, but I'm not sure what to do with it. KakapoKiwi12 (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

=