Thursday, 1/5/12

1st half of block:  finish mapping out pathway of bill.

2nd half of block:  Read up on the notes posted on the blogsite pertaining to Congress.

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