Is Fixing Congressional Procedure A Lost Cause?

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Changes in how Congress operates have made it a less open, fair and democratic institution. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton worries that it may now be too late to change, and wonders, "Is Fixing Congressional Procedure A Lost Cause?"

Four years ago, the Democratic minority on the Rules Committee of the U.S. House — the body that oversees legislative process for that side of the Capitol — issued a lengthy report excoriating the Republican majority for abandoning "procedural fairness" and "democratic accountability." The House leadership of the time, it charged, had essentially shut down debate and boxed the minority out of any meaningful participation in congressional life. 

Last year, the Republicans on the committee — now in the minority themselves — responded with a similar broadside. They accused the new Democratic majority, in the words of their report's subtitle, of abandoning "its promises of openness and civility." "The record demonstrates," they went on to say, that Congress under the Democrats "has actually been more closed than any in history." 

This exchange may seem to be an obscure front in the usual partisan warfare on Capitol Hill, but there is something more fundamental going on than simple partisanship. There is, I believe, a generational shift that has taken place in Congress that raises the question of whether the deliberation, openness and fairness that most Americans would want to see in their premier legislative body are receding out of reach. 

Simply put, the rules have become a tool of the leadership in both parties to pursue their goals — and there are very few members of Congress who still remember when they instead guaranteed the right of ordinary members to engage in open debate and to affect the course of legislation. Each side seems to recognize this now only when it is in the minority. 

The body of rules that members of Congress like to refer to as "the regular order" evolved over time for a reason. It performed a balancing act: on the one hand, allowing any member a chance to participate in debate and legislation, and on the other, seeking to rein in and channel the determination of ambitious politicians to have their say. In doing this, the rules sought to preserve Congress' essential nature as the place where Americans' representatives could bring their various points of view — regional, ideological, moral, and parochial — and work to reconcile them as they grappled with promoting the national interest. 

But gradually, beginning under Democratic majorities in the 1980s and accelerating under the Republican majority of the 1990s, the leadership — especially in the House — began to experiment with interpreting the rules to maximize its power. It did so in part because it wanted to banish uncertainty — the unforeseen amendment, the chance that a floor debate might change minds — and in part because the close partisan divide of the last couple of decades has raised the stakes in every vote, redoubling the determination of the majority to avoid politically uncomfortable votes arranged by the minority. 

The paths the leadership took seem technical. It used the Rules Committee, stacked with loyalists, to limit the ability of members to debate or amend legislation. It found ways to bypass the general committee structure entirely and have bills considered only under conditions — and with amendments — of its own choosing. It began to rely on huge omnibus bills that are impossible for members to read through, let alone analyze and debate, before they're voted on. It limited the ability of conference committees between the House and Senate to depart from the script laid out in advance by leaders in both chambers. 

The upshot, however, is not at all technical. Power is now concentrated in the hands of the leadership and its allies. Actual debate — debate in which the legislative outcome is uncertain — is largely a thing of the past. Legislative maneuvering is aimed less at affecting policy than at affecting elections. The divide between the majority and the minority — not just as partisan bodies, but as individuals serving in Congress together — is deepened by mutual unhappiness over how the other side behaves. 

This is not healthy for Congress, and it is certainly not healthy for the American people, who deserve policies that are openly debated and fairly pursued. So I worry that with every passing year, it is getting harder to undo the changes of the past couple of decades. For most members of Congress now, the current state of affairs is "the regular order," and the earlier era isn't even a memory. 

Change is unlikely to be driven from within; it will only happen, I believe, if enough members of the public come to see the disconnect between how Congress runs itself day-to-day, and our ideals for a representative democracy that is worthy of the name. 

Why Holding the Majority Matters

Thursday, August 28, 2008

When you see news stories over the next few months about which party is likely to emerge from the November elections with a majority in Congress, keep one thing in mind: the basement. You might think that congressional leaders care most about the ability that majority status gives them to set the agenda, and you're probably right; but rest assured that they're also thinking about the gloomy corridors underneath the various House office buildings on Capitol Hill. 

This is where some members of the minority party in the House can get relegated when they want to host a gathering for constituents or visitors. Members of the majority might instead get the meeting rooms that showcase the grandeur of Congress — the elegant ones just off the House floor in the Capitol, with high ceilings, plush carpets, and rich wood paneling. 

I tell you this because it helps to explain why members of Congress behave as they do when control of their chamber is at stake. Sure, being in the minority means losing the House or Senate leadership, committee chairmanships, and the opportunity to set and to advance a party's agenda. But that's just the start of it. The difference between being the majority party and the minority party is so great that in many ways you're talking about two very different experiences of Congress for their respective members. This is one reason the intense partisanship we've seen on Capitol Hill for well over a decade now has such a sharp edge to it. 

Party status affects pretty much everything. The majority not only gets nicer spaces and meeting rooms, it also gets to determine which members and staff will go on overseas fact-finding trips, and enjoys all sorts of little perks that make life on Capitol Hill more pleasant. And on congressional committees, the majority often takes two-thirds to three-fourths of the budget and will have three times the number of staff as the minority, so a shift in party control can be traumatic for those suddenly in the minority. 

Then, of course, there are the substantive differences. In the House, for instance, the leadership of the majority party controls the legislative agenda entirely. It decides not only which issues will be taken up, but also how they can be debated, whether amendments will be allowed, and how the matter will be handled on the House floor. If it wished, it could — and on occasion does — prevent the minority party from offering even a single amendment to important bills brought up on the floor during the session. 

The rules are somewhat less lopsided in the Senate, though the minority there often gets less of a chance to shape legislation — or even attach its members' names to legislation — than it does simply to block a bill entirely. 

The result of all this is two-fold: In a closely divided Congress, the stakes in each election are enormous, not simply in terms of which policies and philosophies will prevail, but what legislative life will be like afterward for members of each party; and this in turn feeds an atmosphere of partisanship and mistrust, and makes it harder to cooperate across the aisle, simply because neither party wants to give the other even the remotest advantage. 

Americans may be tired of the partisanship they've seen on Capitol Hill, but it's worth knowing that there are some basic institutional forces at work that make it difficult to overcome. 

None of this is to say that lessening partisanship is impossible — just that it won't happen without a concerted effort by the majority and minority in both houses of Congress to behave in ways that make the vast gulf in potential power and perquisites somewhat narrower. 

How the majority treats the minority, and vice versa, is hugely important in terms of setting the atmosphere and tone on Capitol Hill. As things stand at the moment, each side tries to manipulate the process to set up votes with an eye toward gaining a partisan advantage to enable them to win another seat or two, rather than producing good legislation. This can only be changed by a wholesale shift in attitude on the part of both parties. 

For the majority's part, this means being aware that it sets the tone, and that consulting with members of the minority party — treating them fairly, as colleagues and not as enemies — should be a normal part of doing business. Equally important, the minority has a responsibility not to gum up the works by taking advantage of arcane rules of procedure or trying to turn every iota of legislative business to its political advantage. 

The tone overall ought to be one of mutual respect and fairness, ruled by a constant awareness that Congress is there to serve the American people and to make the country work, not to offer an arena for conferring on one party or the other a political advantage. Only then can the people who serve in Congress free themselves from the institutional forces that, of late, have made it such an unpleasant place for many of them to serve. 

(Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.)

What it Means to be a Representative

Friday, May 15, 2009

One of the hardest jobs of an elected representative is learning how to represent a diverse constituency. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton explains "What It Means To Be A Representative."

Compared to what it looked like a couple of decades ago, Congress today is a far more representative body. It's true that, as Congressional Quarterly recently pointed out, the House and Senate are still "populated mainly by wealthy white men with advanced degrees and backgrounds in law and business." Yet Capitol Hill undeniably looks more like the American people than in the past. 

It has more women than ever before, for instance — 90 all told. It has a mix of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans. It has its first member of Vietnamese descent, and it's likely that its ethnic diversity will grow with each election. It has members who grew up in families with very little, and members who have never known a day of want. 

Yet "representation" in Congress takes place at two levels. The first is what most people think of when they talk about how well Congress reflects the nation, the sort of tallying by category I've done above: gender, ethnic or racial background, and the like. The less common, but no less important, way of looking at it has to do with how well individual members actually represent their districts or states: not in terms of their looks or background, but in terms of their actions. 

One of the most memorable aspects of the years I spent as a representative in Congress was the astounding cross-section of people I met in my district. I'm hard-pressed to think of another job that could have exposed me to such an array of classes, occupations, racial and ethnic backgrounds, political philosophies, and cultural preferences. Districts and states vary, of course, and some are more homogeneous than others. Yet there isn't a constituency in the country that doesn't call on its member of Congress to reach out to people of wildly different backgrounds and outlook. 

This is not always easy. We all instinctively like or dislike people, in part based on the snap judgments we make when we first meet or even see them. Yet that is a burden the best politicians learn to get over quickly, and not just because they want to get elected. 

For in the end, the job of representative isn't just to speak for the people with whom one feels comfortable. It's to strive to understand and represent everyone in a constituency. This is, interestingly enough, one of the more bracing aspects of the job: you invariably learn something about ways of looking at the world from people who think differently from you; you also learn that, for the most part, their motives are as sincere as your own. As it happens, this is all good training for being a legislator: listening to other points of view and searching for common ground is part and parcel of being effective in Washington. 

Still, paying close attention to the diverse views of a constituency is one of the most difficult aspects of the job. The challenge, of course, is how to reconcile all those conflicting views with one another. As an elected representative, you often ask yourself what your obligation should be to people who don't agree with you — a good many of whom will probably be working to defeat you in the next election. Clearly, you can't violate your own core beliefs; nor can you hope to give voice to every nuance you find in your district. As a representative, though, you can work hard to understand them better; you can search for points they have in common with one another and with you; you can explain why you differ from them; and you can strive at least to acknowledge the positions you do respect, even if you don't agree with them. 

Just as important, you can make sure that you never let policy disagreements get in the way of the rest of the job — making sure lost Social Security checks get found, veterans' benefits get paid, and other ways of running interference with the federal bureaucracy are pursued. 

As a politician, you quickly learn that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. There will always be someone in a crowd who, when you approach, refuses to shake your hand. 

Yet your job, both as a politician and as a representative, isn't to satisfy everyone: it's to satisfy most people. It's to listen carefully, carry what you hear back home to Washington and express it, explain what you hear in Washington to people back home, and, more than anything else, allow the small slice of the American people you represent to feel that there is someone in Washington doing his or her level best to give them a voice. 

(Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.)

Thursday, December 22nd Write a Bill

Recently, there has been a lot of attention paid to financial deals made by members of Congress using information that is not made public.  These deals have made members of both parties great deals of money during a time when the rest of America is struggling to make ends meet. Your assignment is as follows:

1. Research this issue and figure out what needs to be done to end this practice.
2. Working in pairs as assigned by the class president, students will write a bill that addresses this issue.
3. Make a list of interest groups that can be used to support your bill.
4. Make a list of interest groups that would likely want to see your bill fail.

Make use of the following websites:

Building a bill:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/building-a-bill-in-congress.html

How to write a bill:

http://pmc.princeton.edu/writeabill.php

http://sites.google.com/site/roslynmodelcongress/how-to-s/write-a-bill

You will be building a basic strategy to move this bill through Congress on Tuesday, January 3rd.

Tuesday 3rd January Pass a Bill Project

Using the bill you wrote on December 22nd, you will define its path through Congress, beginning in the House.  You are the sponsor who begins the process.  Move it from hopper to President using real committees and chairs.  Use the website below to explore how some bills have fared in Congress.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

For example, you can chart how HR 1343 got to the Senate or how HR 86 got buried in committee.

Use a poster to display how your bill will get through Congress.

Schedule for Week of 12/19

Monday: Computer Lab LH2

Tuesday: Quiz on Lanahan Readings 24 and 25; Group work crossword puzzle

Wednesday:  The Impact of C-Span

Thursday: Computer Lab LH2

Friday: Creation of a Bill project

Article One of the Constitution

Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

  Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

  Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

  Section 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

  Section 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

  Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

  Section 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

  Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  Section 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

  Section 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Structure of the Senate Notes

Composition of the Senate

Congress is made up of two legislative houses—the House of Representatives and the Senate. One hundred senators, two from each state, serve and represent their constituencies in the Senate. The Senate differs from the House of Representatives in several ways. First, the Senate has less than one-fourth the number of seats as the House, which has 435 members. Senators represent a larger base of constituents than House members do; two senators represent their entire state as representatives at-large, whereas House members represent a single district within their state. Senators must be at least 30 years of age, they must be a resident of the state they represent, and they must have been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years. In an effort to maintain continuity in the Senate, only one-third of the senators stand for re-election at one time. With the high rate of incumbent retention, the Senate membership tends to change much slower than the membership of the House of Representatives.
An interesting relationship exists between the two houses of the legislature. In the early years of the new government under the Constitution, the Senate perceived itself as superior to the House of Representatives. The British system of an upper house (House of Lords) and a lower house (House of Commons) served to reinforce this perception. In fact, the Senate even snubbed President Washington when he attempted to use them as an advisory board. When Washington approached the Senate to advise him on a recently negotiated Indian treaty, the Senate deferred the issue to a committee, despite Washington’s hope that they could discuss the issue immediately.
The House of Representatives, which considers itself a workhorse, has often viewed the Senate as snobbish and inefficient. The House was designed to directly represent the will of the people and was therefore chosen by popular election. Conversely, senators, who were chosen by state legislatures, were expected to represent the will and interests of those in power in a given state. Since the system for electing senators eventually became corrupt, the Seventeenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1913, stating that senators shall be elected by the people through popular election.
The characteristics shared by members of Congress tend to be more uniform than the constituents they represent. Like House members, senators tend to be male, white, wealthy, and have a law or business career background. Since the characteristics of members of Congress do not match the demographics of the American people, congressional representation is described as substantive rather than descriptive representation. Instead of sharing the interests of their constituency because of common background, culture, or concerns, congressmen stand for their constituents by representing their interests. A good example would be Senator Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy is white, wealthy, well educated, and clearly a member of the “Eastern Elite.” However, his long-term record in the Senate is one of representing the poor, undereducated, and unemployed.

Structure of the House Notes

Composition of the House

When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution, they divided the powers among the Congress (legislative branch), the president (executive branch), and the courts (judicial branch). The United States Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is the chief policy-making and representative branch of the national government. Since the United States is a representative democracy, members of Congress represent the people by translating public will into public policy in the form of laws.
Apportionment dictates the number of representatives each state sends to the House, and the distribution is based on the population of each individual state. Each state is guaranteed at least one out of the 435 representatives that are seated in the House. Members represent a district within their state. According to a Constitutional requirement, the Census Bureau measures the population every ten years, and the state’s population determines the number of districts in the state. To keep the number of representatives manageable, the number of seats remains 435, as does the number of districts in the country. In order to maintain this number, some states lose seats and other states gain seats in the House following the decennial census.
Reapportionment, or redistribution of seats in the House every ten years, is based on a state’s overall population in proportion to other states. For example, although the population of Kansas grew in the 1980s, the state lost a proportional number of the overall population following the census in 1990. Therefore, the state lost a district and went from five to four representatives. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 established this law. Once the number of districts in a state is determined, it is the state legislature’s responsibility to determine the boundaries of their districts. Baker v. Carr (1962) upheld the concept of “one person, one vote” that allows the courts to reapportion election districts across the nation.
States are not allowed to gerrymander, or create unusually shaped districts, for political purposes. The term “gerrymander” came from “gerry,” the Massachusetts politician, Elbridge Gerry, who attempted to redistrict Massachusetts in 1812 in order to favor Democratic-Republicans, and “mander,” from the odd way the districts began to take the shape of a salamander. At times, the federal government has encouraged "benign gerrymandering" that is designed to increase minority representation in Congress.
The 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 encouraged the creation of legislative districts with predominantly African-American or Hispanic-American populations by requiring states, when possible, to draw district lines that account for concentrations of African-American and Hispanic-American voters. Several long-term, Caucasian Democrats lost their congressional seats as a result of the creation of these new districts in 1991. The decision of Shaw v. Reno (1993) opened the way for challenges to these districts. The ruling stated that a congressional district in North Carolina was so irregular in shape that it was clearly drawn to secure the election of a minority representative. The Court ruled that the district violated the voters' equal rights protection of the 14th Amendment.
The demographics of the body of the House of Representatives do not match the demographics of the American public. Although members come from various career backgrounds, many of them are lawyers or hold elite business or academic positions. Members also tend to be wealthier than their constituents. Caucasians have a disproportionate membership in the House over minorities including African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, as well as women. Although this representation is unbalanced, it works because Congressional representation is substantive rather than descriptive. In other words, although House members may not look like their constituents, they represent the interests of the people in their districts.
Members of the House must be at least 25 years old, they must be a resident of the state they represent, and they must have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years. Although there are no constitutional limits on how many terms a representative may serve, states hold elections for members of the House every two years. This frequent voting keeps state representatives in close contact with their constituents and forces them to constantly campaign in their home districts. It also requires representatives to pay close attention to the House votes they cast on matters that are salient to their constituents. In short, frequent elections make the members more accountable to the people they represent.
The hierarchical organization of the House allows both Democrats and Republicans to give chosen leaders, such as the Speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders, the power to influence members of their parties. The leader of the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. The party that holds the most seats in the House, the majority party, elects this leader. The Speaker is second in line for the presidency after the vice president. The Speaker presides over the House when it is in session and controls many aspects of the House’s daily workings; as a result, the Speaker gains a great deal of power. Bill committee assignments, scheduling, committee membership assignments, and party leadership selections give the Speaker a wide range of power. Some Speakers, like Thomas B. Reed in the late 1800s and Joe Cannon in the early 1900s, wielded their authority by changing House rules, limiting debates, and increasing power of certain committees in order to increase their own power. Over time, changes in House procedural rules have limited the power of the Speaker, but charismatic leaders, such as Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, can still influence the House dramatically.
The majority and minority leaders of the House are second in power. These figures lead each party’s delegation. The majority leader works closely with the Speaker, his partisan ally. The minority leader serves as floor leader of the minority party. The majority and minority leaders are assisted on the floor and in party caucuses by the majority and minority whips. Both the majority and minority leaders work with each party’s whips to see that members vote with the party on key issues.
Committee Chairpersons are also powerful in the House. Some committees are more vital and thus give more power to the chairs. The Rules Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Appropriations Committee are “power” committees with highly coveted chairmanships.
All members of the House hold the common power to make key decisions about important public policies. According to the Constitution, members of the House must initiate all revenue bills and pass all articles of impeachment.

Passage of a Bill Notes

Route of a Bill through Congress

A bill is a piece of legislation that has been proposed but has not been passed. Bills come from many sources, such as politicians, private citizens, special interest groups, and the president. However, only members of Congress have the right to introduce a bill for consideration. While Congress is in session for a two-year term, its members introduce between 10,000 and 11,000 bills. However, Congress passes only around five or six percent of the bills that are introduced.
There are two different types of bills: public and private. Public bills affect all citizens and encompass such issues as taxes and how government money is spent, or appropriated. Public bills also deal with things that benefit citizens, such as public transportation, trade, and education. Tax bills cannot originate in the Senate—all tax bills must first be introduced in the House of Representatives.
Private bills affect small groups, individuals, or places. For example, these bills may appropriate money owed to citizens, or they may provide for other acts that impact a limited number of people. Today, citizens rely on government bureaucracy and the courts to handle grievances, so private bills are not as common as they once were.
In addition to passing bills, Congress passes resolutions. The House and Senate use resolutions to state opinions on matters, change the procedures of their individual bodies, and address issues within the houses. For example, Senate Resolution 301 was passed in December 1954 to censure Joseph McCarthy for instigating what amounted to a witch hunt for Communists in the early 1950s. Since resolutions pertain to the houses of Congress, they are not laws, and the president does not need to sign them.
There are also joint and concurrent resolutions. Joint resolutions are employed to address incidental or short-term matters. For example, in February 1987, a joint resolution was introduced to make the third Sunday of August “National Senior Citizens Day.” Once passed by both houses of Congress, a joint resolution becomes law, so the president does need to sign it.
Concurrent resolutions address situations in which the houses of Congress must act together. For example, Congress issues concurrent resolutions to state its position on matters of foreign policy, as well as to approve congressional budgets. Concurrent resolutions differ from joint resolutions in that once passed, they do not become law. They are similar to the resolutions passed by the House or Senate, and the president does not need to sign them.
When a bill originates in the House of Representatives, a clerk assigns it a number. For example, the number H.R. 2102 signifies that it is the 2,102nd bill introduced in that session. The clerk also gives the bill a descriptive title and enters it in the House Journal and Congressional Record.
After the bills have been logged, the Speaker of the House assigns them to committees based on the nature of the bills. The goal is to match each bill’s content to a committee for consideration. For example, a bill concerning public school achievement would go to the Education Committee.
Assigning bills to committees can be difficult when bills have overlapping areas of concern. For example, a bill concerning subsidies to corn farmers and trading that corn overseas could be sent to the Agriculture Committee, Appropriation Committee, or Commerce Committee.
The committee assignment can be critical because the committees sort through bills and determine which ones will be considered. A majority of bills never make it to the floor of either house of Congress because committees throw them out or file them.
Once in committee, a bill moves to a specialized subcommittee for consideration. The subcommittee examines the bill carefully, holds hearings about it, and adds amendments. The subcommittee members might also make a junket—a trip to the area that will be affected by a bill—to see if the bill will accomplish its intended goals.
Eventually, the subcommittee votes on the bill. If approved, the bill returns to the full committee for final discussion and approval. However, if the subcommittee issues an unfavorable report about the bill, the bill’s journey through the legislative process ends.
After the full committee passes along a bill, the bill goes to the Rules Committee. This committee acts as the legislative clearinghouse. It assigns a calendar date for the bill, as well as rules that will limit how long the bill can be debated, how many amendments can be made to the bill, and other housekeeping aspects. The Rules Committee can also decide not to assign rules for bills, thus ending the bills’ journey through the legislative process.
When a bill has passed through the Rules Committee, it travels to the House floor. At this point, one of two things can happen. The House can act as a Committee of the Whole, or the House can debate, amend, and put the bill to a vote.
In the Committee of the Whole, members of the House become one large committee. This occurrence accelerates the legislative process because only 100 members need to be present, and the Committee has fewer rules than the House does.
When the House converts to the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker becomes a member of the committee, and a different Representative acts as the committee chair. Another member reads through the bill, and then the bill’s advocates and proponents get five minutes to voice their opinions on it.
The Committee of the Whole cannot pass a bill, so after the Committee finishes discussion on a bill, its members disband. The Speaker of the House resumes his or her post, and the House is again session. At this point, a quorum, or 218 members of the House, must be present in order for a vote to proceed.
Members of the House use several methods of voting. One is the voice vote, in which members shout, “yea,” or “nay.” The Speaker then declares the outcome, but how individual members voted (for or against) is not recorded.
Sometimes one or more members disagree with the Speaker’s tally from the voice vote. When this happens, the House holds another vote, by division, or standing. This method requires members voting “yea” to stand while the clerk counts them, followed by the members voting “nay.” As with voice votes, how individuals vote is not recorded.
House members might also use the teller vote, in which they walk between two “tellers” appointed by the Speaker. Those voting in favor of a bill go first, followed by those who are opposed, and the tellers count the votes. This method is used if 20 members of the Committee of the Whole or 44 members of the House request it. With today’s electronic voting capabilities, teller votes are uncommon.
A fourth method of vote, used when one-fifth of the House is present, is the roll-call vote. Members respond individually with “yea” or “nay” when their names are called. Since the 1970s, however, roll-call votes have been conducted electronically, and they are always recorded.
If the whole House approves a bill, the bill moves to the Senate. The Senate then acts on legislation much like the House does. The bill is assigned to a committee for consideration, debate, hearings, and vote. Votes in the Senate are conducted using the same methods as in the House: voice vote, division, and roll call. Since the Senate has fewer members than the House, roll-call votes are done manually rather than electronically.
Voting methods aside, there are four main differences between how the Senate and House handle bills. First, the Senate does not have a Speaker of the house, so the Majority Leader confers with the Minority Leader to decide which committee will handle a bill.
Secondly, Senators can add unlimited amendments, or riders, to a bill, including ones that are non-germane—that do not relate specifically to the context of the bill. Before passing homeland security legislation, some Senators wanted to add 40 amendments to the bill. Of those amendments, 10 were deemed non-germane.
Another difference between how the House and Senate handle bills is that while Representatives can serve on only one major committee at a time, Senators typically serve on two or more major committees. This expanded role makes Senators more policy generalists than the House members.
A fourth difference is that the Senate does not have a Rules Committee to limit debate time. The technical term for unlimited debates on the Senate floor is filibuster. Filibusters can be used as a strategy to delay and in some cases prevent the Senate from voting on a bill. Senators who take the floor can debate a bill for hours, or they might ramble on about things that have nothing to do with the bill. Either way, Senators typically use a filibuster when they want to kill a bill or force compromise.
There are two ways a filibuster might end. One occurs when the people backing a bill decide to let it go. The other occurs when Senators invoke cloture, which limits the length of debate on a bill. To invoke cloture, 16 Senators must sign a petition, and they must pass it by a three-fifths majority. In other words, 60 Senators must vote for cloture. Few Senators use this strategy, however, because they do not want someone else to invoke it against them when they want to conduct a lengthy debate.
If the Senate approves a bill that originated in the House, the bill moves to a Conference Committee. This committee makes sure all bills from the House and Senate are identical. To achieve this, the committee includes members from both houses, as well as members from both political parties.
The Conference Committee members must haggle out compromise solutions to any differences in the bills. In the end, the committee produces a piece of legislation for final approval by both houses. Both the House and Senate must approve the bill in identical form for it to move on for the president’s action.

Congressional Elections Notes

Incumbency

While the president is limited to serving two terms in office, members of Congress can serve an unlimited number of terms. In the mid-nineteenth century, most congressional representatives served only a single term because at that time politics was not considered a career. However, by the mid-twentieth century, congressional representatives began to view holding congressional office as a prestigious career.
Today, the incumbent—or the candidate who currently holds office—enjoys an advantage in most congressional elections. In a race for a seat in the House of Representatives, incumbents win 80 to 90 percent of the time. If House candidates develop a following during their first term, they can expect to get 8 to 10 percent more votes when running for re-election even if they do not receive party support. This increase in voter support is called the sophomore surge, a phenomenon that began in the 1960’s. Incumbent candidates in the Senate are re-elected at a lower rate than those in the House, but still have a huge advantage over new candidates. Senators have a lower re-election rate because they report to diverse constituents across an entire state, while House representatives report to a more uniform, and usually much smaller, district. The difference in constituent diversity and size opens up a larger base for opposition to a Senate incumbent. In addition, senators who run every six years have less contact with the voter making the Senate incumbent seat harder to maintain.
There are several reasons incumbents hold an advantage over new candidates. First, since many Americans know that incumbency often leads to re-election, it tends to stifle election competition. A second reason incumbents hold an advantage is that they have an almost two-to-one advantage in raising money over new candidates. Incumbents typically have an easier time gaining the financial support of Political Action Committees (PACs) and interest groups since these organizations can review voting records to verify support for their cause. For example, in the 1997-1998 congressional races, PACs donated $158.3 million to incumbents, while they only donated $21.4 million to challengers. While the bigger spender does not always win, more funding, especially in the primaries, is a great advantage.
Another advantage incumbents have is that they often get free publicity. A few of the ways incumbents gain press coverage include holding press conferences, making speeches in Congress, introducing bills, and taking trips—junkets—to their districts. Incumbents can also use their franking privileges to inundate voters with mailings prior to the elections. These mail pieces can come in the form of a “newsletter” or “information letter,” and while they may not necessarily ask for voter support, they can point out the positive actions the member of Congress is taking for the constituent.
Credit claiming is also helpful at campaign time. Incumbents can stress their policy making record and emphasize their stands on new policy issues. They can also demonstrate how they have helped their constituents by introducing bills, voting for legislation, and bringing pork-barrel legislation—federal projects, grants, and contracts—to their districts.
A final way in which incumbents hold an advantage over new candidates is that they may use casework, or the direct consideration of a constituent’s problem, when trying to gain re-election. For example, an incumbent might use his or her political connections to help an individual cut through the bureaucratic red tape on a personal issue, which would then result in good word-of-mouth publicity for the incumbent.
Although incumbents usually enjoy an advantage, special circumstances can negatively influence an incumbent’s re-election. For example, scandal, major economic shift, or a lasting change in the arrangement of political forces could influence a candidate’s re-election.
Incumbent or not, all congressional candidates must appeal to the more motivated voters, since only about 37 percent of the population vote in mid-term or off-year congressional elections—the elections that occur between presidential election years. Those who do vote are usually party regulars, political activists, or those who might be strongly affected by the outcome. As a result, candidates must appeal to partisan voters, those loyal to a specific party.

Mass Media PowerPoint

Study Guide Unit III

1. Political Parties

• Historical evolution of US party system
• Function and structure of political parties
• Political parties’ effects on the political process
• Party reform, campaign strategies, and financing in the electronic age
• Ideological and demographic differences between the two political parties

2. Elections

·        Study of elections

·        Election laws

·        Election systems on the state and national level

3. Political Action Committees (PACs)

·        Role as a part of the political process

·        Treatment of PACs

4. Interest Groups/Lobbying

·        Role of interest groups and lobbyists

·        Why some interests are represented by organized groups and why some aren’t

·        What they do

·        How they do it

·        How it effects the political process

·        How it effects public policy

5. The Media

·        How the media is a major and growing force

·        Inherent bias of the media

·        Role and impact of the media on the political system

·        Impact of media on public opinion, voter perception, campaign strategies, electoral outcomes, agenda development, and image of official and candidates represented by the media

·        The symbiotic, yet frequently conflictual, relationship between candidates, elected officials, and the media

Major Readings:

Federalist 10 by James Madison

O’Connor Chapter 12 Political Parties (404), Chapter 16 Interest Groups (566), and

Chapter 15 Media (530), Chapter 13 Elections