That seems silly to me. Is every bill supposed to be perfect the first time? Amendments exist so that people concerns with a bill can be addressed. Getting rid of them would simply prolong the process of passing laws.
"The Act was passed on the last day before Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. According to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), no one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had seen the final language of the bill before it was passed.[4][5] The Economist has written that these provisions were "hastily tacked onto the end of unrelated legislation"."
Edit to add: I agree that the ability to amend bills shouldn't be removed entirely, but it certainly needs an overhaul.
Sounds good to me! If I ever run for office (ha!), I'd run on a platform of reducing the number of outstanding laws -- e.g. every new law passed requires two antiquated laws to be rescinded. Plus, as a side benefit, we could massively reduce the amount of quid pro quo pork added via amendments. Consider it the legal version of "My net programming contribution this week was -2000 lines of code." [1]
[1] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Negative_2000_Lin...
I often hear people say things like, "If Republicans and Democrats (or the house and senate) could work together, they'd get a lot more done.", and I think to myself, "Is a 'productive' congress one that passes thousands of pages of legislation?".
The point was: Continuously bolting on new {law, code} tends to monotonically increase a system's complexity. Many people consider unnecessary complexity "bad." I'm one of those people.
Whether the ability to add amendments prolongs or delays the passing of laws, that's a tough one.