II. Line Item Computer Power (Lilly)

NETWORKING NEEDS
.
.... The concept of Line-Item Legislation requires a great deal of computer power in the back-ground. Beginning with a powerful intranet (dubbed ‘Lilly’ for ‘Line Item Legislation’), the concept would expand to include computer work stations with the appropriate networking. Work stations would be needed in Congressional offices in order to author legislation, committee meeting rooms to revise items as work proceeded, and at Congressional chairs for last minutes voting compromises. (A special feature would allow voting only from those chairs, to enforce attendance). Further workstations would be needed in the White House, Air Force One and Camp David for the President's own use.
.
.
SECURITY NEEDS
.
.... Obviously the entire initiative would require a specially written software program that would be highly secure, password protected and constantly monitored for intrusions.
.
.
LINE ITEM PREPARATION
.
.... In the beginning, as each line-item bill is authored, it would have to meet the requirements of the software template, such as explaining the source of revenue and the jurisdiction. This would insure that each line item was capable of standing alone as a ‘bill’ in itself, if it was approved alone.
.
.... Line-Item bills would then be loaded onto a master program under the labels HR 1, etc, or S1, etc, for pending House or Senate legislation, respectively. As additional line item bills were added, they would join to form a software version of the 'legislative package'. For working purposes, while debate was in progress and the package remained fluid, the package would simply be available to each member via the intranet (Lilly) though of course they could make print-outs if they wished.
.
.... Legislators would coordinate their thoughts with their staffs and with other legislators. This could require new voting time frames, including a 10-14 day preparation period.
.
.... As the Legislator (or their trusted staffer) signed onto the master program on their P.C., their response would begin with one of two options. Basically, they would be ‘For’ or ‘Against’ the package, overall:

1). If they pick the ‘For’ option, they are for the package generally, though they may still mark through the line-items they take exception to.
.
2). If they picked the ‘Against’ option, they are against the package generally, though they may still mark exceptions for line-item bills they wished to support.

.... As an option, as work proceeds, Legislators could also attach personal comments. When this option is used, a pop-up screen would appear, allowing free text entry. This would not become a part of the legislation, it would simply be used for explaining their voting decision in relation to that particular item (For example, comments could be added quickly by retrieving and pasting Word documents into the master program).
.
.... These remarks would eventually appear as a part of the Legislator’s personal ‘background’ record, but they would not be seen in the master program itself. They would only be noted as existing by an asterisk or some other symbol in the right-hand column, and could only be accessed by clicking on the symbol.

.... When anyone clicks on the symbol, the legislator’s remarks would appear, indented, beneath the line-item entry itself. (Similar to this entry, which comments on the paragraph above.)

.... Standard coded responses could also be devised for this option, such as ‘NP’, meaning, “The project seems worthy, but it is not a high enough priority at this time.” More extensive free text entries would also be permitted.
.
.... The Legislators could also ‘flag’ important parts of the legislation for return routing in straw votes (described momentarily), and again when the actual vote has taken place.
.
.
LINE ITEM VOTING
.
.... When Legislators are ready to vote, their personal version of the legislation, complete with their own voting decisions and comments, would be loaded into the main program on the 'Lilly' Intranet, in preparation for a straw vote (the official voting will not yet take place). Once this unofficial straw vote takes place, it may be viewed by other Legislators. Seeing each other's mind more clearly may offer further opportunities for discussing things among themselves, clearing up misunderstandings, coordinating their efforts and reaching a consensus. It would serve as a basis for persuasion, pressure, compromise, etc.
.
.... On the House and Senate floors, workstations would be networked from congressional chairs in an inconspicuous manner. This would allow further changes in case of last minute compromises with colleagues. Confidential email or instant messaging would also be available from seat to seat. Silent laser printers might also be available for creating hard copy if needed. Through this, the program would be updated into final form in preparation for the actual vote. (For accountability purposes, remember: each modification is tracked as a permanent part of each legislator's record).
.
.... When the vote is actually called for, each Legislator would type in the final command to ‘execute’. This would change their straw vote into a real vote, as their final input would be uploaded into the main program. After this entry is made, it cannot be changed. The mainframe would then shift through the input to calculate which items have received a majority of support.
.
.... The voting would be resolved in real time, and items that were previously flagged for return routing would be sent to the Legislators at their screens. This way, they could view the returns as soon as they were resolved. 
.
.... Remember that the computer does much more than this. It retains a record of the original bills, the Legislator’s individual voting records, their comments, etc, for each line item. It also compiles statistical information, telling how much support each item in the bill received. Using the coded responses, it would also determine the basic nature of the opposition.
.
.... The computer would then produce a final version of the bill to be sent into a conference committee with the other house. The committee would begin to work on a compromise bill according to the guidelines already discussed.
.
.
RECONCILED LEGISLATION
.
.... The compromise bill, when completed, would be returned to both houses of Congress. As the committee determines in advance, one of two voting procedures will be used:

1). Under the Legislative option, the compromise bill would become a single bill, voted on as such in both houses, and if approved, it would be sent to the President in the same form, just as it would transpire today.
.
2). Under the Executive option, the compromise legislation would still be sub-divided into ‘line-item bills’ but the line-item voting procedure would not be used. Legislators have already stated their views in the earlier stages and are on record as such, so it would go forward on a fast-track status. What they are voting on now is whether or not to compromise on the matter as a whole.
.
(Furthermore, if both houses voted on a compromise bill in line-item fashion it would eliminate the distinction between the two houses of Congress, which would tend to shift power away from the Senate toward the House of Representatives, which would be unwise.)

.
THE PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW (THE EXECUTIVE OPTION)
.
.... If the compromise bill passed in both houses of Congress, as it normally would, it would be sent to the President for consideration. Assuming that the Executive Option has been authorized, he, too, could review the legislation in line-item form, but with an added element:
.
.... As the President considers vetoing a line item, he would have access to the statistics that showed its support. If 2/3 or more Legislators from each house supported the measure, he would have a pretty good idea that his veto would be overridden. If less than 2/3 supported, he would have confidence that his veto would be sustained. He could also access the voting record itself, and the individual Legislative comments, if any, to aid in his decisions.
.
.... Furthermore, under the rules of the Constitution, the President must explain every veto he gives. While the Executive option would give him more power than the Legislative option, it would also force him to define his political stands to the nation. This would allow Legislators to strike a new balance of power by an alternative means, using it as a tool to force a political issue with the President.
.
.... If the bill is passed under either procedure, it would be carried into law in the usual manner.

To proceed to the next section, on The Service Provider, click here.