Congress
- Congress: the "first branch"
- This branch has considerable power
- Many consider this branch to be the one most badly in need of repair
- The puzzles, processes and actions of this branch say a great deal about America's representative democracy
- Congress versus Parliament
- Parliamentary candidates are selected by party
- Members of Parliament select prime minister and other leaders
- Party members vote together on most issues
- Renomination depends on loyalty to party
- Principal work is debating national issues
- Very little power, very little pay
- Congressional candidates run in a primary election, with little party control
- Vote is for the man or woman, not the party
- Result is a body of independent representatives
- Members do not choose the president
- Principal work is representation and action
- Great deal of power, high pay; parties cannot discipline members
- Congress a decentralized institution
- Members more concerned with their views and views of their constituents
- Members less concerned with organized parties and program proposals of president
- Congress can be unpopular with voters
- Parliamentary candidates are selected by party
- The evolution of Congress
- Intent of the Framers
- To oppose concentration of power in a single institution
- To balance large and small states: bicameralism
- Traditional criticism: Congress is too slow
- Centralization needed for quick and decisive action
- Decentralization needed if congressional constituency interests are to be dominant
- Development of the House
- Always powerful but varied in organization and leadership
- Powerful Speakers
- Powerful committee chairmen
- Powerful individual members
- Ongoing dilemmas
- Increases in size have lead to the need for centralization and less individual influence
- Desire for individual influence has led to institutional weakness
- Always powerful but varied in organization and leadership
- Development of the Senate
- Structural advantages over the House
- Small enough to be run without giving authority to small group of leaders
- Interests more carefully balanced
- No time limits on speakers or committee control of debate
- Senators not elected by voters until this century
- Chosen by state legislators
- Often leaders of local party organizations
- Major changes
- Demand for direct popular election
- Intense political maneuvering and the Millionaire's Club
- Senate opposition and the threat of a constitutional convention
- 17th Amendment approved in 1913
- Filibuster restricted by Rule 22 - though tradition of unlimited debate remains
- Demand for direct popular election
- Structural advantages over the House
- Intent of the Framers
- Who is in Congress?
- The beliefs and interests of members of Congress can affect policy
- Sex and race
- House has become less male and less white
- Senate has been slower to change, but several blacks and Hispanics hold powerful positions
- Incumbency
- Low turnover rates and safe districts common in Congress before 1980s
- Incumbents increasingly viewed as professional politicians and out of touch with the people by the 1980s
- Call for term limits; however, natural forces were doing what term limits were designed to do by the mid-1990s
- Influx of new members should not distort incumbents' advantage
- Party
- Democrats are beneficiaries of incumbency
- Gap between votes and seats: Republican vote higher than number of seats won
- One explanation: Democratic legislatures redraw district lines to favor Democratic candidates
- But research does not support; Republicans run best in high turnout districts, Democrats in low turnout ones
- Another explanation: incumbent advantage increasing
- But not the reason; Democrats field better candidates whose positions are closer to those of voters
- Advantages of incumbency for Democrats turn into disadvantages by the 1990s
- Republicans win control of Congress in 1994
- Republicans replace conservative Democrats in the South during the 1990s
- More party unity, especially in the House, since the 1990s
- Do members represent their voters?
- Representational view
- Assumes that members vote to please their constituents
- Constituents must have a clear opinion of the issue
- Very strong correlation on civil rights and social welfare bills
- Very weak correlation on foreign policy
- May be conflict between legislator and constituency on certain measures: gun control, Panama Canal treaty, abortion
- Constituency influence more important in Senate votes
- Members in marginal districts as independent as those in safe districts
- Weakness of representational explanation: no clear opinion in the constituency
- Organizational view
- Assumes members of Congress vote to please colleagues
- Organizational cues
- Party
- Ideology
- Problem is that party and other organizations do not have a clear position on all issues
- On minor votes most members influenced by party members on sponsoring committees
- Attitudinal view
- Assumes that ideology affects a legislator's vote
- House members tend more than senators to have opinions similar to those of the public.
- 1970s: senators more liberal
- 1980s: senators more conservative
- Prior to 1990s, southern Democrats often aligned with Republicans to form a conservative coalition.
- Conservative coalition no longer as important since most southerners are Republicans
- Ideology and civility in Congress
- Members of Congress more sharply divided ideologically than they once were
- New members of Congress are more ideological
- Members of Congress more polarized than voters
- Democrats more liberal/Republicans more conservative
- Voters closer to center of political spectrum
- Members of Congress (especially the House) do not get along as well as they once did.
- Representational view
- The organization of Congress: parties and caucuses
- Party organization of the Senate
- President pro tempore presides; member with most seniority in majority party
- Leaders are the majority leader and the minority leader, elected by their respective party members
- Party whips keep leaders informed, round up votes, count noses
- Policy Committee schedules Senate business
- Committee assignments
- Democratic Steering Committee
- Republican Committee on Committees
- Emphasize ideological and regional balance
- Other factors: popularity, effectiveness on television, favors owed
- Party structure in the House
- Speaker of the House as leader of majority party; presides over House
- Decides whom to recognize to speak on the floor
- Rules of germaneness of motions
- Decides to which committee bills go
- Appoints members of special and select committees
- Has some patronage power
- Majority leader and minority leader
- Party whip organizations
- Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, chaired by Speaker
- Makes committee assignments
- Schedules legislation
- Republican Committee on Committees; makes committee assignments
- Republican Policy Committee; discusses policy
- Democratic and Republican congressional campaign committees
- Speaker of the House as leader of majority party; presides over House
- The strength of party structure
- Loose measure is ability of leaders to determine party rules and organization
- Tested in 103d Congress: 110 new members
- Ran as outsiders
- Yet reelected entire leadership and committee chairs
- Senate different since transformed by changes in norms, not rules: now less party centered, less leader oriented, more hospitable to new members
- Party unity
- Recent trends
- Party unity voting higher between 1953 and 1965 and lower between 1966 and 1982
- Party unity voting increased since 1983 and was norm in the 1990s
- Party unity voting lower today than in the 1800s and early 1900s
- Party splits today may reflect sharp ideological differences between parties (or at least their respective leaders)
- Such strong differences in opinion are not so obvious among the public
- Impeachment vote did not reflect public opinion
- Congressional Democrats and Republicans also more sharply divided on abortion
- Why are congressional Democrats and Republicans so liberal and conservative?
- Most districts are drawn to protect partisan interests
- Few are truly competitive
- Primary elections count for more and ideological voters are more common in such a low turnout environment
- Voters may be taking cues from the liberal and conservative votes of members of Congress
- Committee chairs are typically chosen on the basis of seniority
- They are also usually from safe districts
- And hold views shaped by lifetime dedication to the cause of their party
- Most districts are drawn to protect partisan interests
- Recent trends
- Caucuses: rivals to parties in policy formulation
- No longer supported by public funds
- Six types
- Party organization of the Senate
- The organization of Congress: committees
- Legislative committees--most important organizational feature of Congress
- Consider bills or legislative proposals
- Maintain oversight of executive agencies
- Conduct investigations
- Types of committees
- Select committees--groups appointed for a limited purpose and limited duration
- Joint committees--those on which both representatives and senators serve
- Conference committee--a joint committee appointed to resolve differences in the Senate and House versions of the same piece of legislation before final passage
- Standing committees--most important type of committee
- Majority party has majority of seats on the committees
- Each member usually serves on two standing committees
- Chairs are elected, but usually the most senior member of the committee is elected by the majority party
- Subcommittee "bill of rights" of 1970s changed several traditions
- Opened more meetings to the public
- Allowed television coverage of meetings
- Effort to reduce number of committees in 1995-1996
- Committee styles
- Decentralization has increased individual member's influence
- Less control by chairs
- More amendments proposed and adopted
- Ideological orientations of committees vary, depending on attitudes of members
- Certain committees tend to attract particular types of legislators
- Policy-oriented members
- Constituency-oriented members
- Decentralization has increased individual member's influence
- Legislative committees--most important organizational feature of Congress
- The organization of Congress: staffs and specialized offices
- Tasks of staff members
- Constituency service: major task of staff
- Legislative functions: monitoring hearings, devising proposals, drafting reports, meeting with lobbyists
- Staff members consider themselves advocates of their employers
- Growth and influence of staff
- Rapid growth: a large staff itself requires a large staff
- Larger staff generates more legislative work
- Members of Congress can no longer keep up with increased legislative work and so must rely on staff
- Results in a more individualistic Congress
- Staff agencies offer specialized information
- Congressional Research Service (CRS)
- General Accounting Office (GAO)
- Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
- Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Tasks of staff members
- How a bill becomes law
- Bills travel through Congress at different speeds
- Bills to spend money or to tax or regulate business move slowly
- Bills with a clear, appealing idea move fast
Examples: "Stop drugs," "End scandal"
- Introducing a bill
- Introduced by a member of Congress: hopper in House, recognized in Senate
- Most legislation has been initiated in Congress
- Presidentially-drafted legislation is shaped by Congress
- Resolutions
- Simple--passed by one house affecting that house
- Concurrent--passed by both houses affecting both
- Joint--passed by both houses, signed by president (except for constitutional amendments)
- Study by committees
- Bill is referred to a committee for consideration by either Speaker or presiding officer
- Revenue bills must originate in the House
- Most bills die in committee
- Hearings are often conducted by several subcommittees: multiple referrals (replaced by sequential referral system in 1995)
- Markup of bills--bills are revised by committees
- Committee reports a bill out to the House or Senate
- If bill is not reported out, the House can use the discharge petition
- If bill is not reported out, the Senate can pass a discharge motion
- House Rules Committee sets the rules for consideration
- Closed rule: sets time limit on debate and restricts amendments
- Open rule: permits amendments from the floor
- Restrictive rule: permits only some amendments
- Use of closed and restrictive rules growing
- Rules can be bypassed by the House
- No direct equivalent in Senate
- Floor debate, House
- Committee of the Whole--procedural device for expediting House consideration of bills but cannot pass bills
- Committee sponsor of bill organizes the discussion
- Floor debate, Senate
- No rule limiting debate or germaneness
- Entire committee hearing process can be bypassed by a senator
- Cloture--sets time limit on debate--three-fifths of Senate must vote for a cloture petition
- Both filibusters and cloture votes becoming more common
- Easier now to stage filibuster
- Roll calls are replacing long speeches
- But can be curtailed by "double tracking"--disputed bill is shelved temporarily--making filibuster less costly
- Methods of voting
- To investigate voting behavior one must know how a legislator voted on amendments as well as on the bill itself.
- Procedures for voting in the House
- Voice vote
- Division vote
- Teller vote
- Roll call vote
- Senate voting is the same except no teller vote
- Differences in Senate and House versions of a bill
- If minor, last house to act merely sends bill to the other house, which accepts the changes
- If major, a conference committee is appointed
- Decisions are made by a majority of each delegation; Senate version favored
- Conference reports back to each house for acceptance or rejection
- Bill, in final form, goes to the president
- President may sign it
- If president vetoes it, it returns to the house of origin
- Either house may override the president by a vote of two-thirds of those present
- If both override, the bill becomes law without the president's signature
- Bills travel through Congress at different speeds
- Reducing power and perks
- Many proposals made to "reform" and "improve" Congress
- Common perception it is overstaffed and self-indulgent
- Quick to regulate others, but not itself
- Quick to pass pork barrel legislation but slow to address controversial questions of national policy
- Use of franking privilege to subsidize personal campaigns
- Proposals to abolish it
- Proposals for restrictions on timing of mailings and a taxpayer "notice"
- Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
- For years Congress routinely exempted itself from many of the laws it passed
- Concern for enforcement (by Executive branch) and separation of powers
- 1995 Act
- Obliged Congress to obey eleven major laws
- Created the Office of Compliance
- Established an employee grievance procedure
- Trimming the pork
- Main cause of deficit is entitlement programs, not pork
- Some spending in districts represents needed projects
- Members supposed to advocate interests of district
- Price of citizen-oriented Congress is pork
- Ethics and Congress
- Separation of powers and corruption
- Fragmentation of power increases number of officials with opportunity to sell influence. Example: senatorial courtesy offers opportunity for office seeker to influence a senator
- Forms of influence
- Money
- Exchange of favors
- Problem of defining unethical conduct
- Violation of criminal law is obviously unethical
- Since 1941, over one hundred charges of misconduct
- Most led to convictions, resignations, or retirements
- Ethics codes and related reforms enacted in 1978, 1989, and 1995 have placed members of Congress under tight rules
- Other issues are more difficult.
- A substantial outside income from speaking and writing does not necessarily lead to vote corruption.
- Personal friendships and alliances can have an undue influence on votes.
- Bargaining among members of Congress may involve exchange of favors and votes.
- Violation of criminal law is obviously unethical
- Separation of powers and corruption
- Summary: The old and the new Congress
- House has evolved through three stages
- Mid-1940s to early 1960s
- Powerful committee chairs, mostly from the South
- Long apprenticeships for new members
- Small congressional staffs
- Early 1970s to early 1980s
- Spurred by civil rights efforts of younger, mostly northern members
- Growth in size of staffs
- Committees became more democratic
- More independence for members
- Focus on reelection
- More amendments and filibusters
- Early 1980s to present
- Strengthening and centralizing party leadership
- Became apparent under Jim Wright
- Return to more accommodating style under Tom Foley
- Senate meanwhile has remained decentralized throughout this period
- Mid-1940s to early 1960s
- Reassertion of congressional power in 1970s
- Reaction to Vietnam and Watergate
- War Powers Act of 1973
- Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974
- Increased requirement for legislative veto
- Congressional power never as weak as critics have alleged
- House has evolved through three stages