Discuss how a bill becomes a law

Discussion 5: Congress vs The President
Due: Jul 25, 2020 at 11:59 PM

Discuss how a bill becomes a law. This discussion should include:

Introduction of the bill into the House/Senate
Referral to committee (both types, sequential and simultaneous)
- Committee Hearings
- Committee Mark-up
- Discharge from Committee
Debate and amendment on the floor (subject to Rules in the House, filibuster in the Senate)
Floor Vote
Referral to the other chamber (from House to Senate, or vice-versa)
Referral to committee in the other chamber
- Committee Hearings
- Committee Mark-up
- Discharge from Committee
Debate and amendment on the floor (subject to Rules in the House, filibuster in the Senate)
Floor Vote
Conference Committee action (if necessary)
Presidential signature or Veto
Reconsideration (if vetoed)

The Struggle for Democracy

Twelfth Edition

Chapter 11

Congress

Learning Objectives

11.1 Describe the constitutional provisions that define the Congress.

11.2 Assess how well members of Congress represent their constituents.

11.3 Describe the process of congressional elections and the impact of incumbency on election outcomes.

11.4 Outline the process by which a bill becomes a law.

11.5 Outline the factors that influence roll-call voting in Congress.

11.6 Discuss Congress’s oversight function and the relationship of oversight to party control.

The Dawn of a New Congress

With Republicans maintaining their majority in both the House and Senate, and with newly-elected President Trump, expect a significant amount of new legislation in the 115th Congress. Priorities of congressional Republicans include the repeal of Obamacare and significant tax cuts. Their success in rolling back the policies of the Obama administration will depend largely on their ability to unite around their leadership and find agreement with the new and unpredictable president.

Now that Republicans have unified government, will they be able to achieve dramatic policy change in the coming years?

Journal 11.1: The Dawn of a New Congress

Now that Republicans have unified government, will they be able to achieve dramatic policy change in the coming years?

Learning Objective 11.1

Describe the constitutional provisions that define the Congress.

Constitutional Foundations of Congress

Enumerated and Implied Powers of Congress

Constraints on Congress

Basis for Representation in Congress

Is Congress Capable of Solving Big Problems?

As we have noted previously, the framers of the Constitution were concerned about government tyranny but they had also learned that they needed to give the national legislature some powers. The tension between these two needs is reflected in the design of Congress.

Enumerated and Implied Powers of Congress

Article I, Section 8

Enumerated powers

Power to make laws

Longest list of responsibilities and powers

Elastic clause

Powers necessary to carry out enumerated powers

Implied powers

The Constitution address the legislature in its first article, which signifies its importance in the federal government. Congress is given a specific list of enumerated powers as well as the power to make all laws that are “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers.

Constraints on Congress

Prohibited actions

Bills of attainder

Ex post facto laws

Titles of nobility

Suspension of habeas corpus

Bill of Rights

Bicameralism

Presidential veto

Judicial review

The framers wrote into the Constitution a list of prohibited actions that are forbidden to Congress under any circumstances.

The framers granted certain powers to Congress that they thought were necessary for the nation to survive and prosper but they also constrained Congress from having an excess of power that could lead to tyranny. They did this mainly by dividing Congress into two chambers, as well as separating governmental power into two other branches. These competing centers of power are designed to prevent tyranny and to force deliberation before major decisions. Through the power of presidential vetoes and judicial review we can see how a system of institutional checks and balances mitigates congressional power.

Basis for Representation in Congress

Two competing plans for representation

Virginia Plan based on population

New Jersey Plan based on states

The Connecticut Compromise

Terms of office

Election

Seventeenth Amendment (1913)

Grants of specific legislative authority

At the time of the Constitutional convention, the issue of representation in the national legislature was one of the fiercely debated. There were two plans proposed, the Virginia Plan, favoring representation based on population and the New Jersey Plan, which favored representation based on equality among the states. The Connecticut Compromise ended the debate.

How do the House and Senate differ? House members serve two-year terms of office and their number is determined by population.

Senators serve six-year terms of office, with one-third of the membership being up for election every two years, and there are two senators from each state, regardless of population.

Members of the House are elected by the people but Senators were elected by state legislatures initially, not directly by the people until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

The Constitution gives specific grants of legislative authority to each of the two houses, for example, the power of advice and consent given to the Senate.

Table 11.1 Constitutional Differences Between the House and the Senate

	Senate	House of Representatives
Length of term	6 years	2 years
Election of members	One-third elected in November of even-numbered years	Entire membership elected in November of even-numbered years
Number of members per state	2	Varies by size of state’s population (minimum of 1 per state)
Total membership	100	435 (determined by Congress; at present size since 1910)
Minimum age for membership	30 years	25 years
Unique powers	Advice and consent for judicial and upper-level executive branch appointments	Origination of revenue bills
	Trial of impeachment cases	Bringing impeachment charges
	Advice and consent for treaties

This table highlights some of the important constitutional differences between the U.S House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Is Congress Capable of Solving Big Problems?

Framers tried to balance a powerful Congress against tyranny

Many wonder if Congress has enough power to address national problems

Policy gridlock in Congress

President becomes default decision maker

Today, many wonder whether Congress is powerful enough to address important national problems. The inability to craft long-term and carefully thought out solutions is a function of national trends combining with the institutional structure of American government.

The rise of the Tea Party and the success of both the Trump and Sanders campaigns illustrate the deep concerns that Americans have about their economic future. At the same time, achieving compromise between the two major parties in Congress has become more difficult, leading to policy gridlock.

In the absence of a functioning legislative branch the president becomes the default decision maker, something that the framers did not want to happen.

Figure 11.1 Applying the Framework: Congressional Gridlock

This application of the text’s framework inspects the factors that result in congressional inaction, even as economic conditions seem to demand policy change.

Learning Objective 11.2

Assess how well members of Congress represent their constituents.

Representation and Democracy in Congress

Two Styles of Representation

Member Demographics

Representation in the House: Reapportionment and Redistricting

Representation in the Senate

How Representative Is Congress? A Look Back at the Arguments

How democratic is our representation in Congress? Does Congress reflect the demographics of the American population? Does it have to reflect them in order to provide democratic representation? In this section, we will examine these questions and other questions about the nature of democratic representation in American government.

Two Styles of Representation

Trustee

Use best judgment

Delegate

Follow will of constituents

Which model to use?

Congress members have a choice

There are two models of representation. In the trustee model, representatives use their best judgment, acting independently. In the delegate model, representatives try their best to vote according to the views of their constituents, regardless of whether their wishes accord with the public interest.

In the nineteenth century, the trustee model fell out of favor and the delegate model came to be expected by voters. Which model do you prefer, and why?

Are senators or members of the House more free to assume the trustee model of representation?

The Delegate Versus the Trustee

Edmund Burke (right) famously articulated the delegate model of representation by saying that politicians are elected to exercise their own judgment and use their own expertise. Abraham Lincoln (left) preferred the delegate model of representation by deferring to the opinions of his constituents on important matters.

Is one model of representation superior to another model in democratic societies?

Journal 11.2: The Delegate Versus the Trustee

Is one model of representation—either the delegate model or the trustee model—superior to another model in democratic societies?

Member Demographics

Descriptive representation

Race

Gender

Sexual Orientation

Income and Occupation

According to the theory of descriptive representation, the views of groups such as women or African Americans will only be taken into account in policymaking if members of these groups hold seats in Congress in proportion to their percentages in the population. Is the U.S. Congress demographically representative of the U.S. population? In a word, no.

Both women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in Congress. African Americans, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, and Native Americans are not represented in numbers that come close to their percentage in the population as a whole, especially Hispanics, who are now the largest minority group.

Women’s numbers have been increasing in both the House and Senate but they do not yet comprise half the membership.

As acceptance of the LGBT community has become more common so have LGBT members of Congress. Currently there is one openly gay member of the U.S. Senate (Tammy Baldwin-D WI) and seven openly gay members of the U.S. House (all Democrats). There were two openly gay Republican House members but they lost their bids for reelection.

Members of Congress are wealthier and, for the most part, more educated than the general population. Some come from other professions or the military but the vast majority are career politicians. Their wealth, as well as their jobs, prevent them from having much in common with average Americans. Does this negatively affect representation? What do you think?

Figure 11.2 Women and Minorities in the U.S. Congress

NOTE: Data not adjusted to reflect House races or races undecided as of November, 11, 2016.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census; U.S. Senate; U.S. House of Representatives; Rutgers University, Center for Women and American Politics.

Although their numbers in Congress have increased in recent years, women and racial minorities are still substantially under-represented in the current session of the U.S. Congress compared with their proportion in the American population.

The Democratic Women of the 114th Congress

Though women are still proportionally under-represented in Congress, more are elected every year. Here, the Democratic women of the 114th Congress pose for a group portrait. That Congress featured 108 women, the most ever. But, consider that there are 535 members of the House and Senate combined, meaning women were still only about 20% of congressional representation, despite being about 51% of the population.

Is electing more women to Congress important, or does the gender breakdown of congressional membership not matter for representational purposes?

Journal 11.3: The Democratic Women of the 114th Congress

Is electing more women to Congress important, or does the gender breakdown of congressional membership not matter for representational purposes?

Representation in the House: Reapportionment and Redistricting (1 of 2)

The effects of reapportionment on representation

Occurs every 10 years following the census

States gain, lose, or keep the same seats depending upon relative changes to their populations

Current trend is gains for the South and Southwest

States that lose seats have less influence

Every ten years following the U.S. census, Congress goes through the process of reapportioning seats based upon population changes across the country. Some states gain, others lose, while some remain the same depending upon the net population changes experienced during the previous decade.

The current trend is that states in the South and the Southwest are gaining congressional seats at the expense of states from the Northeast and the industrial Midwest.

As states lose representation in Congress they lose influence, especially in the battles to secure federal funding.

Figure 11.3 Reapportioned Congressional Seats Following the 2010 Census

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Apportionment Results. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, By State, table 1.

The number of representatives for each state in the House of Representatives is based on the size of its population. Because the relative sizes of state populations change over time while the number of seats in the House is fixed, the number of representatives for each state is recalculated after each census. This process is called reapportionment.

FIGURE 11.2: States gaining and losing congressional seats following the 2010 census

11.2

The number of representatives for each state in the House of Representatives is based on the size of its population. Every ten years the the number of representatives from each state is recalculated after each census. This process is called reapportionment.

States gaining or losing seats must redraw the boundary lines of their congressional districts so that they are of roughly equal population size.

This map shows which states gained and lost seats after the 2010 census.

Representation in the House: Reapportionment and Redistricting (2 of 2)

The effects of redistricting on representation

Gerrymandering

Partisan

Cracking and packing

Effects on polarization

Majority-minority districts

Increased representation for minorities

Effects on parties in Congress

Once reapportionment has occurred the states must begin the process of redrawing congressional district lines within their states. This process is known as redistricting.

One outcome of redistricting is the partisan gerrymander. Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing congressional districts to create partisan advantages for whichever party controls the state legislature (in a majority of states redistricting is done by the state legislatures). The partisan gerrymander is achieved either by splitting a partisan voting block over two or more districts (cracking) or concentrating partisan voters into a single district (packing).

Political scientists are finding mounting evidence that gerrymandering of districts does not explain increased polarization in Congress.

Majority-minority districts are a form of gerrymandering that seeks to concentrate minorities into a single district so as to increase their chances of electing a minority representative. This type of gerrymandering has helped to increase representation for minorities but has hurt the Democratic Party general in terms of seats controlled.

Redistricting

The “Gerry-Mander”: A New Species of Monster

The Massachusetts district created in 1812 to help the candidate supported by the Governor Elbridge Gerry, and shown here in a political cartoon from the time, was the first well-known gerrymander, but certainly not the last.

What negative effects might gerrymandering have on representation? Are there any positive effects of gerrymandering?

The Earmuff Congressional District: The Illinois Fourth

The “earmuff” district in Chicago is an example of how creating majority- minority districts can result in odd-shaped boundaries. The district links two Hispanic communities on opposite sides of Interstate 290.

How important is it that racial minorities elect a member of Congress that is racially similar to constituents? Can racial minorities be well-represented by white members of Congress if they agree on the issues?

Representation in the Senate

Less complicated than representation in the House of Representatives

Diversity causes senators to be more moderate

Senators behave like trustees

Because senators represent an entire state questions of representation are less complicated than those in the House. The diversity of states causes senators to be more moderate and less ideologically extreme than House members. In addition, the large size of states allows senators to behave more like trustees than delegates.

In states where a single political party dominates members of the Senate can become more extreme.

How Representative Is Congress? A Look Back

Does Congress live up to the ideal?

Distortions in congressional representation

Does Congress vote in a way consistent with constituent interests?

The framers intended Congress to be the branch of government that was closest to the people and would effectively represent their interests.

Many factors, such as how we choose representatives, the lack of descriptive representation, and a range of others make it difficult to keep Congress accountable to the interests of citizens.

Does Congress vote in a way consistent with the interests of citizens? Evidence suggests that they do, most of the time. However, on issues that are complex or do not have high visibility, citizens may not have well-formed interests and it is here where money and other influences can affect the votes of Congress.

Learning Objective 11.3

Describe the process of congressional elections and the impact of incumbency on election outcomes.

Congressional Elections

The Congressional Elections Process

Who Runs for Congress?

Money and Congressional Elections

The Incumbency Factor

Do Congressional Elections Ensure Representation?

There are many different factors that influence how congressional elections take place. This section explores a range of those in addition to the question about elections and representation.

The Congressional Election Process

Steps to take when deciding to run

House members spend more time

Up for reelection more frequently

The permanent campaign

Must win primary and general campaign

When deciding to run there are a number of steps that candidates must undertake. These range from making sure that the voters in your district know who you are to the all-important task of raising campaign funds.

House incumbents spend more time focusing on reelection because they must run every two years. This puts the House into a state of permanent campaign. Senators have the luxury of taking a break between campaign due to their six-year term of office.

Both House and Senate members must win the primary election as well as the general election. In districts where one party dominates the primary is often more important than the general election.

Who Runs for Congress?

Senate seats are more visible than House seats

Senators face better quality challengers

House members often face weak challengers or run unopposed

Candidates for the House

Mayors, state legislators, local elected officials

Candidates for the Senate

House members, governors, big-city mayors, other state-wide elected officials

Senate races are far more visible than House races and as a result tend to draw better quality challengers. Candidates for the House come from the ranks of state and local government while the Senate draws a much better known set of challengers state-wide.

Money and Congressional Elections

Money from outside groups

Self-financing congressional campaigns

Raising money

Open seat elections

Scare-off effect

Running for office is expensive and members of Congress rely on campaign contributions from individuals and PACs. Not to be overlooked, parties, committees, interest groups, advocacy groups, corporations, and unions also spend lavishly on ads for issues and for candidates.

Some candidates choose to self-finance their runs for Congress and contribute vast sums of their personal money to run for office.

Incumbents attract more money than challengers, and open-seat elections in which no incumbent is involved used lots of money, with interest and advocacy groups jockeying for influence.

Raising large sums of money well before an election sends a signal to potential challengers—the so-called scare-off effect—that an incumbent will not go down without a fight. Incumbents with lots of money on hand discourage potential challengers from running against them.

The Exception that Proves the Rule

Members of Congress, even powerful ones, tend to “run scared” and raise a lot of money, though usually their seat seems safe. Though the vast majority of members win their reelection race, inevitably some are taken by surprise and lose. Here, Eric Cantor, the powerful House majority leader, campaigns in 2014. Cantor was one such member who lost in a shocking upset during the 2014 Republican primary to a formerly unknown local professor who raised very little money. Many of Cantor ’s constituents believe he lost touch with the district and spent more time deal-making in Washington than he did addressing local concerns.

How important is the role of campaign money in congressional elections? Should candidates have to raise money themselves, or should the government provide campaign funds much like it used to for presidential campaigns?

Journal 11.5: The Exception that Proves the Rule

How important is the role of campaign money in congressional elections? Should candidates have to raise money themselves, or should the government provide campaign funds much like it used to for presidential campaigns?

Figure 11.4 Campaign Money Raised by Incumbents, Challengers, and Open-Seat Candidates 2013–2014 Election Cycle

NOTE: At this writing the Federal Election Commission has not reported on campaign money raised in the 2016 congressional elections.

SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, Incumbent Advantage, Election Cycle 2014. https/www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php?cycle=2014&party=A&type=G.

Because campaign contributors want access to important decision makers in Congress, contributors tend to give a disproportionate share of campaign contributions to incumbents and to those open-seat candidates who have a good chance to win their elections.

The Incumbency Factor

Incumbents win reelection at very high rates

Average 93% in the House

Average 80% in the Senate

Reasons explaining incumbent success

Redistricting

Money

Franking privilege

Casework

Pork

Incumbents win at such high rates, especially in the House, that most elections are not competitive. On average, 93% of House members and 80% of senators are reelected.

Why are seats in Congress so safe for the incumbent? We have already mentioned that campaign contributions usually go to incumbents rather than challengers, and that redistricting creates “safe” seats for one party or the other.

Members of Congress can also use the U.S postal system free of charge to mail newsletters and campaign literature. This is known as the franking privilege. Members of Congress also serve their constituents on an individual basis via casework, and bring home appropriations for projects in their states or districts, something known as pork.

Figure 11.5 Rates of Incumbent Reelection in Congress

NOTE: Figure does not include races undecided as of November 14, 2016.

SOURCE: Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin. Vital Statistics on Congress (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2013), tables 2.7–2.8; Center for Responsive Politics, Opensecrets.org. “Reelection Rates Over the Years.”

The probability that an incumbent will be reelected remains at historic highs. This does not mean, however, that the membership of Congress is stagnant. Turnover in membership is substantial because of retirements and the defeat of incumbents in primary elections.

Federal Spending at Work

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, sometimes called the Stimulus Bill, was passed during the height of the Great Recession in early 2009. The law spent about $830 billion, much of it on construction projects like this one, meant to improve local infrastructure while also stimulating the economy and getting people back to work. Critics complained it was nothing more than pork barrel spending with little national benefit.

Is federal spending on local projects worth the benefits for the district, or is it a wasteful use of federal tax dollars?

Journal 11.6: Federal Spending at Work

Is federal spending on local projects worth the benefits for the district, or is it a wasteful use of federal tax dollars?

Do Congressional Elections Ensure Representation?

Congressional members engage in a variety of activities to win reelection

Member’s ideology generally matches that of constituents

Money is changing the connection between members and constituents

Members of Congress pay attention to the interests of their constituents as they work to get reelected. There is evidence that supports that most of the time, members do a fairly good job of representation. Some of this is due to the fact that the ideology of a member generally matches the ideology of the constituents that he or she represents.

The importance of money in American elections is changing the relationship between members of Congress and the citizens they represent. The heavy reliance on outside groups for money is reducing the influence of the average citizen with members of Congress. There is growing evidence that suggest the wealthy in a district have direct access to representatives not enjoyed by average citizens.

Learning Objective 11.4

Outline the process by which a bill becomes a law.

The Congressional Legislative Process

Introducing a Bill

Referral to Committee

The Rules Committee

Floor Action on a Bill

Resolving Bicameral Differences

Presidential Action on a Bill

Party and Leadership Influences on the Passage Process

Passing a new law is exceedingly difficult but blocking one is quite easy. This accounts for the fact that only about 6% of bills that are introduced ever become law. A bill can be killed at any stage in the lawmaking process, as we will discover in this section.

Figure 11.6 How A Bill Becomes a Law

This diagram shows the path by which major bills introduced in Congress become law. As explained in the text, the road that bills must travel is complex and difficult, and few bills survive it. A bill can be derailed at any stop in its passage. A subcommittee can refuse to report a bill; a bill may be defeated on the floor of each chamber; a conference committee may fail to reach an agreement on a compromise; the conference bill may be defeated in either chamber; or the president may veto the bill.

Introducing a Bill

Only a member of Congress can introduce a bill

Often written with the help of interest groups or the executive branch

Bills can be introduced in either the House or the Senate

Tax bills must originate in House

Must pass both houses to become law

Only a member of Congress can introduce a bill for consideration to become a law. With the exception of tax bills, which must originate in the House, a bill may be introduced in either chamber.

Referral to Committee

Bill referred to standing committee

Committees help Congress to manage legislation

Committees serve as screening devices

Committees are islands of specialization

Committees and subcommittees

Hearings

Bill markup

Committee chairs and seniority

Deference to party leadership

Once introduced bills go through the important committee process, first being referred to a standing committee and then down to a subcommittee. These legislative committees are islands of specialization that help Congress screen legislations and manage its overall legislative workload.

While in committee, bills are subject to hearings (testimony) on the merits of the legislation in addition to being subject to a process known as bill markup, where committee members will revise the content of a bill. Every committee has a committee chair who has significant power over the fate of legislation. Committee chairs are traditionally appointed by seniority. Recently, committee chairs have seen a decline in their power and influence.

The increasing polarization of Congress has led committees to frequently defer to the wishes and demands of party leadership.

The Rules Committee

Feature in the House of Representatives

Determines time for debate

Determines what amendments are allowed

Can prevent or delay a bill from proceeding

Members are typically party loyalists

Polarization has increased closed rules

One of the main differences in the legislative process between the House and the Senate is the House Rules Committee. This committee has the power not only to determine the length of debate for a bill but also what amendments (if any) are allowed. Since no bill can be considered without a rule, this committee has the power to delay or prevent a bill from proceeding.

Membership on this committee is generally comprised of party loyalists appointed by the Speaker of the House. Party polarization has led to an increase in the use of the closed rule, which prevents amendments being offered to a bill during floor debate.

Floor Action on a Bill (1 of 2)

The House passage process

Generally easier than in the Senate

Bills need only a simple majority

In the House the passage process is pretty straightforward. The Rules Committee constrains the amount of time that can be taken for a debate and a bill needs only a simple majority to pass.

Floor Action on a Bill (2 of 2)

The Senate passage process

More difficult

Senators have more individual power

Fewer limitations on debate

Filibusters

Cloture

Holds

Filibuster reforms

By contrast the Senate is a more much difficult process. Individual senators have considerable power and the absence of Rules Committee means that there are fare fewer limitations on debate.

One of the primary tools of the minority in the Senate is the filibuster. A filibuster is parliamentary device used in the Senate to prevent a bill from coming to a vote by “talking it to death,” or by refusing to end debate, made possible by the norm of unlimited debate unless cloture is invoked. Cloture motions require a super majority of 60 votes to successfully end debate, something that is incredibly hard to do. As such, even the threat of a filibuster can have a powerful effect on the course of legislation in the Senate.

Another tool in the Senate is the hold, a tactic by which a single senator can prevent action on a bill or nomination; based on an implied threat of refusing to agree to unanimous consent on other Senate matters or willingness to filibuster the bill or nomination.

There has been much talk surrounding the abuse of the filibuster for partisan purposes. Institutionally the Senate was meant to be the deliberative body and it remains to see if any efforts to change or eliminate the filibuster will be successful in the future.

Filibustering to Make a Point

Ted Cruz, seen here on a television monitor in the Senate Press Gallery, spoke for about 20 hours in 2013 in opposition to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, passed in 2009. Cruz sought to rally support from fellow Republicans in his mission to refuse to approve new government spending unless the health care law was also denied funding, effectively killing it. Cruz’s speech demonstrates the power of a single senator to shut down Senate business for an extended period of time and the inability of a majority of Senators to control legislative action.

Is the filibuster still an important way for the minority party to ensure their voice is heard, or should the Senate be able to close off debate with a simple majority?

Journal 11.7: Filibustering to Make a Point

Is the filibuster still an important way for the minority party to ensure that its voice is heard, or should the Senate be able to close off debate with a simple majority vote?

Table 11.2 Differences Between the House and Senate Rules and Norms

Senate	House
Informal, open, non-hierarchical	Rule-bound, hierarchical
Leaders have only a few formal powers	Leaders have many formal powers
Members may serve on two or more major committees	Members restricted to one major committee
Less specialized	More specialized
Unrestricted floor debate	Restricted floor debate
Unlimited time for debate unless shortened by unanimous consent or halted by invocation of cloture	Limited time for debate
Unlimited amendments possible	Only limited amendments possible
Amendments need not be germane	Amendments must be germane
More prestige for each member	Less prestige for each member
More reliance on staff	Less reliance on staff
Minority party plays a larger role; hard to put majority rule into effect.	Minority party plays a smaller role; majority rule drives legislative process

This table illustrates some of the key differences between the House and Senate.

Resolving Bicameral Differences

Bills passed by each chamber are substantially different

Differences must be reconciled by conference committee

Must be voted on again by each chamber

Conference committees becoming more partisan

If a bill makes it through both chambers, the House and Senate versions are likely to differ in both minor and major ways. A conference committee comprising members of each chamber must fashion a compromise bill. This bill must then be passed by each chamber without amendments.

Presidential Action on a Bill

Veto

Pocket veto

Overriding a veto

Two-thirds vote in both houses

Once a bill has been passed in identical form in each chamber of Congress, it goes to the president. If the president signs it, it becomes law. The president can also return the bill to Congress unsigned. This is called a veto. If the president takes no action for 10 days, the bill becomes law without his signature, unless Congress adjourns during the 10 days. If that happens, the president has killed the bill by a process called a pocket veto.

Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses.

Party and Leader Influences on the Passage Process (1 of 2)

Political parties are at the core of the legislative process

Leadership in the House

Speaker of the House

Powers have waxed and waned

Controls party agenda

Majority leader second in command

Majority whips

Minority leader and whips

The Speaker of the House is head of the majority party in that chamber. He or she is third in line in presidential succession. Speakers used to wield considerably more power than they do today. In 1910, a revolt of the rank and file resulted in the Speaker’s unilateral power to appoint committees and chairs being removed, but recent Speakers have been given more power by their parties. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first female Speaker of the House. The Speaker is expected to push the party’s legislative agenda and block the opposition party’s agenda.

The majority leader is the second in command in the House, followed by the majority whips, whose main job is to enforce party-line voting and prevent defections. The minority party also elects a leader and whips.

Party and Leader Influences on the Passage Process (2 of 2)

Leadership in the Senate

Less formal

Most power is not institutional

Senate majority leader

Minority leader plays an important role

The Senate is less than a quarter the size of the House and its leadership is less formal. The Senate majority leader is as close as one comes to a leader in this chamber, but he or she has much less power and influence than the Speaker of the House. Senators are more independent and what power this position possesses is personal rather than institutional.

Learning Objective 11.5

Outline the factors that influence roll-call voting in Congress.

Voting In Congress

Procedural and Substantive Votes

Parties and Party-Line Voting In Congress

This section explores how Congress votes on procedural and substantive issues as well as the role of parties in structuring how members vote.

Procedural and Substantive Votes

Procedural votes

Votes that occur on motions or rules

Substantive votes

Votes on bills or amendments

Most partisan differences on procedural votes

There are two general types of votes taken in Congress, votes on procedure and votes on substance. Procedural votes are roll-call votes in Congress which occur on motions or rules, used to conduct the business of the chamber. A substantive vote is a roll call vote in Congress on passing a bill or adopting amendments to a bill. Evidence shows that most of the difference between Democrats and Republicans are on votes of procedure, not substance. While members of a party might want to vote to adopt a bill, they will frequently vote against procedural motions to advance its passage.

Parties and Party-Line Voting in Congress

Political parties are glue for decentralized Congress and legislative process

Party labels provide voting cues for members

Reasons for increasing party line votes

Shifting regionalism

Rising partisanship of activists and advocates

Character of constituencies

Ideology

The political party is an important component that helps hold a fragmented Congress and legislative process together. The party label provides important cues for members as they vote on a variety of procedural and substantive motions in Congress. There are multiple reasons presented by political scientists that explain the increasing use of party line votes in Congress. Many of these are reflections of the increasing polarization of Congress.

Figure 11.7 Party Voting in Congress

SOURCE: Data from Howard Rosenthal and Keith Poole, Party Unity Scores by Chamber for All Two-Party Systems, Voteview, May 31, 2015.

Partisanship has been growing in Congress. One indicator is the increase in the percentage of times the average Democrat and Republican in the House and Senate sided with his/her party on partisan votes—those votes when a majority of Democrats voted against a majority of Republicans.

Learning Objective 11.6

Discuss Congress’s oversight function and the relationship of oversight to party control.

Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch

Purposes of oversight

Ensure laws are properly executed

Prevent abuses of power

Three main methods of oversight

Nominee confirmations

Hearings and investigations

Impeachment

Congressional oversight of the executive branch serves to ensure that laws are “faithfully executed” and to catch any instances of abuse of power by the president or other executive branch employees.

There are three main mechanisms of Congressional oversight that will be discussed in the following slides.

Nominee Confirmations

Ensures qualifications before people take office

Senate can and does reject unqualified people

One mechanism for exercising oversight is the Senate power of advice and consent. This allows Congress to ensure that presidential appointees to the executive branch are qualified before they even take office. A good example of this oversight power is seen in Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court justices. Senate can and will reject unqualified nominees.

Hearings and Investigations

One of Congress’s most visible and dramatic oversight roles

Examples

Watergate

Iran-Contra affair

Benghazi

Increases when party control of government is divided

Some examples of high-profile legislative probes carried out by congressional committees and subcommittees include the Watergate break-in, the Iran-Contra affair, and an investigation into the attacks on the American Embassy in Benghazi.

As you can imagine, legislative oversight is conducted with more vigor when Congress and the White House are controlled by different parties.

Public Whipping

John Mack, chairman of Morgan Stanley, tries to explain to members of the Senate Finance Committee why the financial collapse happened, why industry profits were soaring, and why bonuses were being paid, even as loan money for small businesses and homeowners was scarce. The chief executives of other leading financial firms wait their turns to testify.

What role in our political system do congressional hearings play? Do they lead to substantive changes in regulations and laws, or are they more often opportunities to play to the anger or frustration of the public?

Journal 11.8: Public Whipping

What role in our political system do congressional hearings play? Do they lead to substantive changes in regulations and laws, or are they more often opportunities to play to the anger or frustration of the public?

Impeachment

House has impeachment responsibilities

Senate has trial responsibilities

Only used once against a bureaucrat

Rarely against judges

No president has ever been removed from office

Congress has the power to remove high executive officials by the process of impeachment. It is rare for Congress to take this drastic step. Congress has initiated impeachment of only three presidents and no president has been successfully impeached. Seven executive branch officials have been removed by impeachment so far. It is more common for an official at risk of impeachment to resign to avoid the proceedings.

Shared Writing

The framers had a fairly narrow definition of who might be best suited to vote and hold public office. For the most part, they left the question of voting eligibility to the states, with full knowledge that the states did not allow women, Native Americans, slaves, free blacks, or young people to vote. Many states required voters to pay a poll tax or show evidence of property ownership. A few even required people to belong to an established church. A majority of people residing in the United States when the Constitution was ratified in 1788, as a consequence, were not eligible to vote in American federal elections.

Over the broad course of American history, however, the right to vote has expanded to include virtually every once-excluded group. These democratizing actions took place first at the state level, where poll taxes were gradually eliminated (later reinstituted for African Americans in the South during the Jim Crow period), as were property qualifications and religious tests. By the late 1820s, white male suffrage was universal in the United States. Later, a series of constitutional amendments gradually incorporated other excluded groups. First, former male slaves were granted the right to vote, then women, and finally 18- to 21-year-olds.

Think about the role Congress has played in make voting rights and U.S. citizenship more inclusive.

Now construct a brief argument for or against this proposition: Congress should pass a law granting citizenship and voting rights to law-abiding individuals brought to this country illegally as children. How would you defend your position to a fellow student? What would be your main line of argument? What evidence do you believe best supports your position?

Photo Credits

Page 286: Songquan Deng/Shutterstock; 292: North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy Stock Photo; 294: Olivier Douliery/ ABACAUSA.COM/Newscom; 296: Bettmann/Getty Images; 298: © 2012 Issued by the State Board of Elections, Prepared with the assistance of the Illinois Department of Transportation; 301: ZUMA Press, Inc./ Alamy Stock Photo; 304: Charles Dharapak/AP Images; 309: Charles Dharapak/AP Images; 317: Jay Mallin/ Bloomberg/Getty Images

The Struggle for Democracy

Twelfth Edition

Chapter 11

Congress

Learning Objectives

11.1 Describe the constitutional provisions that define the Congress.

11.2 Assess how well members of Congress represent their constituents.

11.3 Describe the process of congressional elections and the impact of incumbency on election outcomes.

11.4 Outline the process by which a bill becomes a law.

11.5 Outline the factors that influence roll-call voting in Congress.

11.6 Discuss Congress’s oversight function and the relationship of oversight to party control.

The Dawn of a New Congress

With Republicans maintaining their majority in both the House and Senate, and with newly-elected President Trump, expect a significant amount of new legislation in the 115th Congress. Priorities of congressional Republicans include the repeal of Obamacare and significant tax cuts. Their success in rolling back the policies of the Obama administration will depend largely on their ability to unite around their leadership and find agreement with the new and unpredictable president.

Now that Republicans have unified government, will they be able to achieve dramatic policy change in the coming years?

Journal 11.1: The Dawn of a New Congress

Now that Republicans have unified government, will they be able to achieve dramatic policy change in the coming years?

Learning Objective 11.1

Describe the constitutional provisions that define the Congress.

Constitutional Foundations of Congress

Enumerated and Implied Powers of Congress

Constraints on Congress

Basis for Representation in Congress

Is Congress Capable of Solving Big Problems?

As we have noted previously, the framers of the Constitution were concerned about government tyranny but they had also learned that they needed to give the national legislature some powers. The tension between these two needs is reflected in the design of Congress.

Enumerated and Implied Powers of Congress

Article I, Section 8

Enumerated powers

Power to make laws

Longest list of responsibilities and powers

Elastic clause

Powers necessary to carry out enumerated powers

Implied powers

The Constitution address the legislature in its first article, which signifies its importance in the federal government. Congress is given a specific list of enumerated powers as well as the power to make all laws that are “necessary and proper” to carry out its enumerated powers.

Constraints on Congress

Prohibited actions

Bills of attainder

Ex post facto laws

Titles of nobility

Suspension of habeas corpus

Bill of Rights

Bicameralism

Presidential veto

Judicial review

The framers wrote into the Constitution a list of prohibited actions that are forbidden to Congress under any circumstances.

The framers granted certain powers to Congress that they thought were necessary for the nation to survive and prosper but they also constrained Congress from having an excess of power that could lead to tyranny. They did this mainly by dividing Congress into two chambers, as well as separating governmental power into two other branches. These competing centers of power are designed to prevent tyranny and to force deliberation before major decisions. Through the power of presidential vetoes and judicial review we can see how a system of institutional checks and balances mitigates congressional power.

Basis for Representation in Congress

Two competing plans for representation

Virginia Plan based on population

New Jersey Plan based on states

The Connecticut Compromise

Terms of office

Election

Seventeenth Amendment (1913)

Grants of specific legislative authority

At the time of the Constitutional convention, the issue of representation in the national legislature was one of the fiercely debated. There were two plans proposed, the Virginia Plan, favoring representation based on population and the New Jersey Plan, which favored representation based on equality among the states. The Connecticut Compromise ended the debate.

How do the House and Senate differ? House members serve two-year terms of office and their number is determined by population.

Senators serve six-year terms of office, with one-third of the membership being up for election every two years, and there are two senators from each state, regardless of population.

Members of the House are elected by the people but Senators were elected by state legislatures initially, not directly by the people until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

The Constitution gives specific grants of legislative authority to each of the two houses, for example, the power of advice and consent given to the Senate.

Table 11.1 Constitutional Differences Between the House and the Senate

	Senate	House of Representatives
Length of term	6 years	2 years
Election of members	One-third elected in November of even-numbered years	Entire membership elected in November of even-numbered years
Number of members per state	2	Varies by size of state’s population (minimum of 1 per state)
Total membership	100	435 (determined by Congress; at present size since 1910)
Minimum age for membership	30 years	25 years
Unique powers	Advice and consent for judicial and upper-level executive branch appointments	Origination of revenue bills
	Trial of impeachment cases	Bringing impeachment charges
	Advice and consent for treaties

This table highlights some of the important constitutional differences between the U.S House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Is Congress Capable of Solving Big Problems?

Framers tried to balance a powerful Congress against tyranny

Many wonder if Congress has enough power to address national problems

Policy gridlock in Congress

President becomes default decision maker

Today, many wonder whether Congress is powerful enough to address important national problems. The inability to craft long-term and carefully thought out solutions is a function of national trends combining with the institutional structure of American government.

The rise of the Tea Party and the success of both the Trump and Sanders campaigns illustrate the deep concerns that Americans have about their economic future. At the same time, achieving compromise between the two major parties in Congress has become more difficult, leading to policy gridlock.

In the absence of a functioning legislative branch the president becomes the default decision maker, something that the framers did not want to happen.

Figure 11.1 Applying the Framework: Congressional Gridlock

This application of the text’s framework inspects the factors that result in congressional inaction, even as economic conditions seem to demand policy change.

Learning Objective 11.2

Assess how well members of Congress represent their constituents.

Representation and Democracy in Congress

Two Styles of Representation

Member Demographics

Representation in the House: Reapportionment and Redistricting

Representation in the Senate

How Representative Is Congress? A Look Back at the Arguments

How democratic is our representation in Congress? Does Congress reflect the demographics of the American population? Does it have to reflect them in order to provide democratic representation? In this section, we will examine these questions and other questions about the nature of democratic representation in American government.

Two Styles of Representation

Trustee

Use best judgment

Delegate

Follow will of constituents

Which model to use?

Congress members have a choice

There are two models of representation. In the trustee model, representatives use their best judgment, acting independently. In the delegate model, representatives try their best to vote according to the views of their constituents, regardless of whether their wishes accord with the public interest.

In the nineteenth century, the trustee model fell out of favor and the delegate model came to be expected by voters. Which model do you prefer, and why?

Are senators or members of the House more free to assume the trustee model of representation?

The Delegate Versus the Trustee

Edmund Burke (right) famously articulated the delegate model of representation by saying that politicians are elected to exercise their own judgment and use their own expertise. Abraham Lincoln (left) preferred the delegate model of representation by deferring to the opinions of his constituents on important matters.

Is one model of representation superior to another model in democratic societies?

Journal 11.2: The Delegate Versus the Trustee

Is one model of representation—either the delegate model or the trustee model—superior to another model in democratic societies?

Member Demographics

Descriptive representation

Race

Gender

Sexual Orientation

Income and Occupation

According to the theory of descriptive representation, the views of groups such as women or African Americans will only be taken into account in policymaking if members of these groups hold seats in Congress in proportion to their percentages in the population. Is the U.S. Congress demographically representative of the U.S. population? In a word, no.

Both women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in Congress. African Americans, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, and Native Americans are not represented in numbers that come close to their percentage in the population as a whole, especially Hispanics, who are now the largest minority group.

Women’s numbers have been increasing in both the House and Senate but they do not yet comprise half the membership.

As acceptance of the LGBT community has become more common so have LGBT members of Congress. Currently there is one openly gay member of the U.S. Senate (Tammy Baldwin-D WI) and seven openly gay members of the U.S. House (all Democrats). There were two openly gay Republican House members but they lost their bids for reelection.

Members of Congress are wealthier and, for the most part, more educated than the general population. Some come from other professions or the military but the vast majority are career politicians. Their wealth, as well as their jobs, prevent them from having much in common with average Americans. Does this negatively affect representation? What do you think?

Figure 11.2 Women and Minorities in the U.S. Congress

NOTE: Data not adjusted to reflect House races or races undecided as of November, 11, 2016.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census; U.S. Senate; U.S. House of Representatives; Rutgers University, Center for Women and American Politics.

Although their numbers in Congress have increased in recent years, women and racial minorities are still substantially under-represented in the current session of the U.S. Congress compared with their proportion in the American population.

The Democratic Women of the 114th Congress

Though women are still proportionally under-represented in Congress, more are elected every year. Here, the Democratic women of the 114th Congress pose for a group portrait. That Congress featured 108 women, the most ever. But, consider that there are 535 members of the House and Senate combined, meaning women were still only about 20% of congressional representation, despite being about 51% of the population.

Is electing more women to Congress important, or does the gender breakdown of congressional membership not matter for representational purposes?

Journal 11.3: The Democratic Women of the 114th Congress

Is electing more women to Congress important, or does the gender breakdown of congressional membership not matter for representational purposes?

Representation in the House: Reapportionment and Redistricting (1 of 2)

The effects of reapportionment on representation

Occurs every 10 years following the census

States gain, lose, or keep the same seats depending upon relative changes to their populations

Current trend is gains for the South and Southwest

States that lose seats have less influence

Every ten years following the U.S. census, Congress goes through the process of reapportioning seats based upon population changes across the country. Some states gain, others lose, while some remain the same depending upon the net population changes experienced during the previous decade.

The current trend is that states in the South and the Southwest are gaining congressional seats at the expense of states from the Northeast and the industrial Midwest.

As states lose representation in Congress they lose influence, especially in the battles to secure federal funding.

Figure 11.3 Reapportioned Congressional Seats Following the 2010 Census

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Apportionment Results. Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, By State, table 1.

The number of representatives for each state in the House of Representatives is based on the size of its population. Because the relative sizes of state populations change over time while the number of seats in the House is fixed, the number of representatives for each state is recalculated after each census. This process is called reapportionment.

FIGURE 11.2: States gaining and losing congressional seats following the 2010 census

11.2

The number of representatives for each state in the House of Representatives is based on the size of its population. Every ten years the the number of representatives from each state is recalculated after each census. This process is called reapportionment.

States gaining or losing seats must redraw the boundary lines of their congressional districts so that they are of roughly equal population size.

This map shows which states gained and lost seats after the 2010 census.

Representation in the House: Reapportionment and Redistricting (2 of 2)

The effects of redistricting on representation

Gerrymandering

Partisan

Cracking and packing

Effects on polarization

Majority-minority districts

Increased representation for minorities

Effects on parties in Congress

Once reapportionment has occurred the states must begin the process of redrawing congressional district lines within their states. This process is known as redistricting.

One outcome of redistricting is the partisan gerrymander. Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing congressional districts to create partisan advantages for whichever party controls the state legislature (in a majority of states redistricting is done by the state legislatures). The partisan gerrymander is achieved either by splitting a partisan voting block over two or more districts (cracking) or concentrating partisan voters into a single district (packing).

Political scientists are finding mounting evidence that gerrymandering of districts does not explain increased polarization in Congress.

Majority-minority districts are a form of gerrymandering that seeks to concentrate minorities into a single district so as to increase their chances of electing a minority representative. This type of gerrymandering has helped to increase representation for minorities but has hurt the Democratic Party general in terms of seats controlled.

Redistricting

The “Gerry-Mander”: A New Species of Monster

The Massachusetts district created in 1812 to help the candidate supported by the Governor Elbridge Gerry, and shown here in a political cartoon from the time, was the first well-known gerrymander, but certainly not the last.

What negative effects might gerrymandering have on representation? Are there any positive effects of gerrymandering?

The Earmuff Congressional District: The Illinois Fourth

The “earmuff” district in Chicago is an example of how creating majority- minority districts can result in odd-shaped boundaries. The district links two Hispanic communities on opposite sides of Interstate 290.

How important is it that racial minorities elect a member of Congress that is racially similar to constituents? Can racial minorities be well-represented by white members of Congress if they agree on the issues?

Representation in the Senate

Less complicated than representation in the House of Representatives

Diversity causes senators to be more moderate

Senators behave like trustees

Because senators represent an entire state questions of representation are less complicated than those in the House. The diversity of states causes senators to be more moderate and less ideologically extreme than House members. In addition, the large size of states allows senators to behave more like trustees than delegates.

In states where a single political party dominates members of the Senate can become more extreme.

How Representative Is Congress? A Look Back

Does Congress live up to the ideal?

Distortions in congressional representation

Does Congress vote in a way consistent with constituent interests?

The framers intended Congress to be the branch of government that was closest to the people and would effectively represent their interests.

Many factors, such as how we choose representatives, the lack of descriptive representation, and a range of others make it difficult to keep Congress accountable to the interests of citizens.

Does Congress vote in a way consistent with the interests of citizens? Evidence suggests that they do, most of the time. However, on issues that are complex or do not have high visibility, citizens may not have well-formed interests and it is here where money and other influences can affect the votes of Congress.

Learning Objective 11.3

Describe the process of congressional elections and the impact of incumbency on election outcomes.

Congressional Elections

The Congressional Elections Process

Who Runs for Congress?

Money and Congressional Elections

The Incumbency Factor

Do Congressional Elections Ensure Representation?

There are many different factors that influence how congressional elections take place. This section explores a range of those in addition to the question about elections and representation.

The Congressional Election Process

Steps to take when deciding to run

House members spend more time

Up for reelection more frequently

The permanent campaign

Must win primary and general campaign

When deciding to run there are a number of steps that candidates must undertake. These range from making sure that the voters in your district know who you are to the all-important task of raising campaign funds.

House incumbents spend more time focusing on reelection because they must run every two years. This puts the House into a state of permanent campaign. Senators have the luxury of taking a break between campaign due to their six-year term of office.

Both House and Senate members must win the primary election as well as the general election. In districts where one party dominates the primary is often more important than the general election.

Who Runs for Congress?

Senate seats are more visible than House seats

Senators face better quality challengers

House members often face weak challengers or run unopposed

Candidates for the House

Mayors, state legislators, local elected officials

Candidates for the Senate

House members, governors, big-city mayors, other state-wide elected officials

Senate races are far more visible than House races and as a result tend to draw better quality challengers. Candidates for the House come from the ranks of state and local government while the Senate draws a much better known set of challengers state-wide.

Money and Congressional Elections

Money from outside groups

Self-financing congressional campaigns

Raising money

Open seat elections

Scare-off effect

Running for office is expensive and members of Congress rely on campaign contributions from individuals and PACs. Not to be overlooked, parties, committees, interest groups, advocacy groups, corporations, and unions also spend lavishly on ads for issues and for candidates.

Some candidates choose to self-finance their runs for Congress and contribute vast sums of their personal money to run for office.

Incumbents attract more money than challengers, and open-seat elections in which no incumbent is involved used lots of money, with interest and advocacy groups jockeying for influence.

Raising large sums of money well before an election sends a signal to potential challengers—the so-called scare-off effect—that an incumbent will not go down without a fight. Incumbents with lots of money on hand discourage potential challengers from running against them.

The Exception that Proves the Rule

Members of Congress, even powerful ones, tend to “run scared” and raise a lot of money, though usually their seat seems safe. Though the vast majority of members win their reelection race, inevitably some are taken by surprise and lose. Here, Eric Cantor, the powerful House majority leader, campaigns in 2014. Cantor was one such member who lost in a shocking upset during the 2014 Republican primary to a formerly unknown local professor who raised very little money. Many of Cantor ’s constituents believe he lost touch with the district and spent more time deal-making in Washington than he did addressing local concerns.

How important is the role of campaign money in congressional elections? Should candidates have to raise money themselves, or should the government provide campaign funds much like it used to for presidential campaigns?

Journal 11.5: The Exception that Proves the Rule

How important is the role of campaign money in congressional elections? Should candidates have to raise money themselves, or should the government provide campaign funds much like it used to for presidential campaigns?

Figure 11.4 Campaign Money Raised by Incumbents, Challengers, and Open-Seat Candidates 2013–2014 Election Cycle

NOTE: At this writing the Federal Election Commission has not reported on campaign money raised in the 2016 congressional elections.

SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, Incumbent Advantage, Election Cycle 2014. https/www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php?cycle=2014&party=A&type=G.

Because campaign contributors want access to important decision makers in Congress, contributors tend to give a disproportionate share of campaign contributions to incumbents and to those open-seat candidates who have a good chance to win their elections.

The Incumbency Factor

Incumbents win reelection at very high rates

Average 93% in the House

Average 80% in the Senate

Reasons explaining incumbent success

Redistricting

Money

Franking privilege

Casework

Pork

Incumbents win at such high rates, especially in the House, that most elections are not competitive. On average, 93% of House members and 80% of senators are reelected.

Why are seats in Congress so safe for the incumbent? We have already mentioned that campaign contributions usually go to incumbents rather than challengers, and that redistricting creates “safe” seats for one party or the other.

Members of Congress can also use the U.S postal system free of charge to mail newsletters and campaign literature. This is known as the franking privilege. Members of Congress also serve their constituents on an individual basis via casework, and bring home appropriations for projects in their states or districts, something known as pork.

Figure 11.5 Rates of Incumbent Reelection in Congress

NOTE: Figure does not include races undecided as of November 14, 2016.

SOURCE: Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, and Michael J. Malbin. Vital Statistics on Congress (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2013), tables 2.7–2.8; Center for Responsive Politics, Opensecrets.org. “Reelection Rates Over the Years.”

The probability that an incumbent will be reelected remains at historic highs. This does not mean, however, that the membership of Congress is stagnant. Turnover in membership is substantial because of retirements and the defeat of incumbents in primary elections.

Federal Spending at Work

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, sometimes called the Stimulus Bill, was passed during the height of the Great Recession in early 2009. The law spent about $830 billion, much of it on construction projects like this one, meant to improve local infrastructure while also stimulating the economy and getting people back to work. Critics complained it was nothing more than pork barrel spending with little national benefit.

Is federal spending on local projects worth the benefits for the district, or is it a wasteful use of federal tax dollars?

Journal 11.6: Federal Spending at Work

Is federal spending on local projects worth the benefits for the district, or is it a wasteful use of federal tax dollars?

Do Congressional Elections Ensure Representation?

Congressional members engage in a variety of activities to win reelection

Member’s ideology generally matches that of constituents

Money is changing the connection between members and constituents

Members of Congress pay attention to the interests of their constituents as they work to get reelected. There is evidence that supports that most of the time, members do a fairly good job of representation. Some of this is due to the fact that the ideology of a member generally matches the ideology of the constituents that he or she represents.

The importance of money in American elections is changing the relationship between members of Congress and the citizens they represent. The heavy reliance on outside groups for money is reducing the influence of the average citizen with members of Congress. There is growing evidence that suggest the wealthy in a district have direct access to representatives not enjoyed by average citizens.

Learning Objective 11.4

Outline the process by which a bill becomes a law.

The Congressional Legislative Process

Introducing a Bill

Referral to Committee

The Rules Committee

Floor Action on a Bill

Resolving Bicameral Differences

Presidential Action on a Bill

Party and Leadership Influences on the Passage Process

Passing a new law is exceedingly difficult but blocking one is quite easy. This accounts for the fact that only about 6% of bills that are introduced ever become law. A bill can be killed at any stage in the lawmaking process, as we will discover in this section.

Figure 11.6 How A Bill Becomes a Law

This diagram shows the path by which major bills introduced in Congress become law. As explained in the text, the road that bills must travel is complex and difficult, and few bills survive it. A bill can be derailed at any stop in its passage. A subcommittee can refuse to report a bill; a bill may be defeated on the floor of each chamber; a conference committee may fail to reach an agreement on a compromise; the conference bill may be defeated in either chamber; or the president may veto the bill.

Introducing a Bill

Only a member of Congress can introduce a bill

Often written with the help of interest groups or the executive branch

Bills can be introduced in either the House or the Senate

Tax bills must originate in House

Must pass both houses to become law

Only a member of Congress can introduce a bill for consideration to become a law. With the exception of tax bills, which must originate in the House, a bill may be introduced in either chamber.

Referral to Committee

Bill referred to standing committee

Committees help Congress to manage legislation

Committees serve as screening devices

Committees are islands of specialization

Committees and subcommittees

Hearings

Bill markup

Committee chairs and seniority

Deference to party leadership

Once introduced bills go through the important committee process, first being referred to a standing committee and then down to a subcommittee. These legislative committees are islands of specialization that help Congress screen legislations and manage its overall legislative workload.

While in committee, bills are subject to hearings (testimony) on the merits of the legislation in addition to being subject to a process known as bill markup, where committee members will revise the content of a bill. Every committee has a committee chair who has significant power over the fate of legislation. Committee chairs are traditionally appointed by seniority. Recently, committee chairs have seen a decline in their power and influence.

The increasing polarization of Congress has led committees to frequently defer to the wishes and demands of party leadership.

The Rules Committee

Feature in the House of Representatives

Determines time for debate

Determines what amendments are allowed

Can prevent or delay a bill from proceeding

Members are typically party loyalists

Polarization has increased closed rules

One of the main differences in the legislative process between the House and the Senate is the House Rules Committee. This committee has the power not only to determine the length of debate for a bill but also what amendments (if any) are allowed. Since no bill can be considered without a rule, this committee has the power to delay or prevent a bill from proceeding.

Membership on this committee is generally comprised of party loyalists appointed by the Speaker of the House. Party polarization has led to an increase in the use of the closed rule, which prevents amendments being offered to a bill during floor debate.

Floor Action on a Bill (1 of 2)

The House passage process

Generally easier than in the Senate

Bills need only a simple majority

In the House the passage process is pretty straightforward. The Rules Committee constrains the amount of time that can be taken for a debate and a bill needs only a simple majority to pass.

Floor Action on a Bill (2 of 2)

The Senate passage process

More difficult

Senators have more individual power

Fewer limitations on debate

Filibusters

Cloture

Holds

Filibuster reforms

By contrast the Senate is a more much difficult process. Individual senators have considerable power and the absence of Rules Committee means that there are fare fewer limitations on debate.

One of the primary tools of the minority in the Senate is the filibuster. A filibuster is parliamentary device used in the Senate to prevent a bill from coming to a vote by “talking it to death,” or by refusing to end debate, made possible by the norm of unlimited debate unless cloture is invoked. Cloture motions require a super majority of 60 votes to successfully end debate, something that is incredibly hard to do. As such, even the threat of a filibuster can have a powerful effect on the course of legislation in the Senate.

Another tool in the Senate is the hold, a tactic by which a single senator can prevent action on a bill or nomination; based on an implied threat of refusing to agree to unanimous consent on other Senate matters or willingness to filibuster the bill or nomination.

There has been much talk surrounding the abuse of the filibuster for partisan purposes. Institutionally the Senate was meant to be the deliberative body and it remains to see if any efforts to change or eliminate the filibuster will be successful in the future.

Filibustering to Make a Point

Ted Cruz, seen here on a television monitor in the Senate Press Gallery, spoke for about 20 hours in 2013 in opposition to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, passed in 2009. Cruz sought to rally support from fellow Republicans in his mission to refuse to approve new government spending unless the health care law was also denied funding, effectively killing it. Cruz’s speech demonstrates the power of a single senator to shut down Senate business for an extended period of time and the inability of a majority of Senators to control legislative action.

Is the filibuster still an important way for the minority party to ensure their voice is heard, or should the Senate be able to close off debate with a simple majority?

Journal 11.7: Filibustering to Make a Point

Is the filibuster still an important way for the minority party to ensure that its voice is heard, or should the Senate be able to close off debate with a simple majority vote?

Table 11.2 Differences Between the House and Senate Rules and Norms

Senate	House
Informal, open, non-hierarchical	Rule-bound, hierarchical
Leaders have only a few formal powers	Leaders have many formal powers
Members may serve on two or more major committees	Members restricted to one major committee
Less specialized	More specialized
Unrestricted floor debate	Restricted floor debate
Unlimited time for debate unless shortened by unanimous consent or halted by invocation of cloture	Limited time for debate
Unlimited amendments possible	Only limited amendments possible
Amendments need not be germane	Amendments must be germane
More prestige for each member	Less prestige for each member
More reliance on staff	Less reliance on staff
Minority party plays a larger role; hard to put majority rule into effect.	Minority party plays a smaller role; majority rule drives legislative process

This table illustrates some of the key differences between the House and Senate.

Resolving Bicameral Differences

Bills passed by each chamber are substantially different

Differences must be reconciled by conference committee

Must be voted on again by each chamber

Conference committees becoming more partisan

If a bill makes it through both chambers, the House and Senate versions are likely to differ in both minor and major ways. A conference committee comprising members of each chamber must fashion a compromise bill. This bill must then be passed by each chamber without amendments.

Presidential Action on a Bill

Veto

Pocket veto

Overriding a veto

Two-thirds vote in both houses

Once a bill has been passed in identical form in each chamber of Congress, it goes to the president. If the president signs it, it becomes law. The president can also return the bill to Congress unsigned. This is called a veto. If the president takes no action for 10 days, the bill becomes law without his signature, unless Congress adjourns during the 10 days. If that happens, the president has killed the bill by a process called a pocket veto.

Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses.

Party and Leader Influences on the Passage Process (1 of 2)

Political parties are at the core of the legislative process

Leadership in the House

Speaker of the House

Powers have waxed and waned

Controls party agenda

Majority leader second in command

Majority whips

Minority leader and whips

The Speaker of the House is head of the majority party in that chamber. He or she is third in line in presidential succession. Speakers used to wield considerably more power than they do today. In 1910, a revolt of the rank and file resulted in the Speaker’s unilateral power to appoint committees and chairs being removed, but recent Speakers have been given more power by their parties. In 2007, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became the first female Speaker of the House. The Speaker is expected to push the party’s legislative agenda and block the opposition party’s agenda.

The majority leader is the second in command in the House, followed by the majority whips, whose main job is to enforce party-line voting and prevent defections. The minority party also elects a leader and whips.

Party and Leader Influences on the Passage Process (2 of 2)

Leadership in the Senate

Less formal

Most power is not institutional

Senate majority leader

Minority leader plays an important role

The Senate is less than a quarter the size of the House and its leadership is less formal. The Senate majority leader is as close as one comes to a leader in this chamber, but he or she has much less power and influence than the Speaker of the House. Senators are more independent and what power this position possesses is personal rather than institutional.

Learning Objective 11.5

Outline the factors that influence roll-call voting in Congress.

Voting In Congress

Procedural and Substantive Votes

Parties and Party-Line Voting In Congress

This section explores how Congress votes on procedural and substantive issues as well as the role of parties in structuring how members vote.

Procedural and Substantive Votes

Procedural votes

Votes that occur on motions or rules

Substantive votes

Votes on bills or amendments

Most partisan differences on procedural votes

There are two general types of votes taken in Congress, votes on procedure and votes on substance. Procedural votes are roll-call votes in Congress which occur on motions or rules, used to conduct the business of the chamber. A substantive vote is a roll call vote in Congress on passing a bill or adopting amendments to a bill. Evidence shows that most of the difference between Democrats and Republicans are on votes of procedure, not substance. While members of a party might want to vote to adopt a bill, they will frequently vote against procedural motions to advance its passage.

Parties and Party-Line Voting in Congress

Political parties are glue for decentralized Congress and legislative process

Party labels provide voting cues for members

Reasons for increasing party line votes

Shifting regionalism

Rising partisanship of activists and advocates

Character of constituencies

Ideology

The political party is an important component that helps hold a fragmented Congress and legislative process together. The party label provides important cues for members as they vote on a variety of procedural and substantive motions in Congress. There are multiple reasons presented by political scientists that explain the increasing use of party line votes in Congress. Many of these are reflections of the increasing polarization of Congress.

Figure 11.7 Party Voting in Congress

SOURCE: Data from Howard Rosenthal and Keith Poole, Party Unity Scores by Chamber for All Two-Party Systems, Voteview, May 31, 2015.

Partisanship has been growing in Congress. One indicator is the increase in the percentage of times the average Democrat and Republican in the House and Senate sided with his/her party on partisan votes—those votes when a majority of Democrats voted against a majority of Republicans.

Learning Objective 11.6

Discuss Congress’s oversight function and the relationship of oversight to party control.

Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch

Purposes of oversight

Ensure laws are properly executed

Prevent abuses of power

Three main methods of oversight

Nominee confirmations

Hearings and investigations

Impeachment

Congressional oversight of the executive branch serves to ensure that laws are “faithfully executed” and to catch any instances of abuse of power by the president or other executive branch employees.

There are three main mechanisms of Congressional oversight that will be discussed in the following slides.

Nominee Confirmations

Ensures qualifications before people take office

Senate can and does reject unqualified people

One mechanism for exercising oversight is the Senate power of advice and consent. This allows Congress to ensure that presidential appointees to the executive branch are qualified before they even take office. A good example of this oversight power is seen in Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court justices. Senate can and will reject unqualified nominees.

Hearings and Investigations

One of Congress’s most visible and dramatic oversight roles

Examples

Watergate

Iran-Contra affair

Benghazi

Increases when party control of government is divided

Some examples of high-profile legislative probes carried out by congressional committees and subcommittees include the Watergate break-in, the Iran-Contra affair, and an investigation into the attacks on the American Embassy in Benghazi.

As you can imagine, legislative oversight is conducted with more vigor when Congress and the White House are controlled by different parties.

Public Whipping

John Mack, chairman of Morgan Stanley, tries to explain to members of the Senate Finance Committee why the financial collapse happened, why industry profits were soaring, and why bonuses were being paid, even as loan money for small businesses and homeowners was scarce. The chief executives of other leading financial firms wait their turns to testify.

What role in our political system do congressional hearings play? Do they lead to substantive changes in regulations and laws, or are they more often opportunities to play to the anger or frustration of the public?

Journal 11.8: Public Whipping

What role in our political system do congressional hearings play? Do they lead to substantive changes in regulations and laws, or are they more often opportunities to play to the anger or frustration of the public?

Impeachment

House has impeachment responsibilities

Senate has trial responsibilities

Only used once against a bureaucrat

Rarely against judges

No president has ever been removed from office

Congress has the power to remove high executive officials by the process of impeachment. It is rare for Congress to take this drastic step. Congress has initiated impeachment of only three presidents and no president has been successfully impeached. Seven executive branch officials have been removed by impeachment so far. It is more common for an official at risk of impeachment to resign to avoid the proceedings.

Shared Writing

The framers had a fairly narrow definition of who might be best suited to vote and hold public office. For the most part, they left the question of voting eligibility to the states, with full knowledge that the states did not allow women, Native Americans, slaves, free blacks, or young people to vote. Many states required voters to pay a poll tax or show evidence of property ownership. A few even required people to belong to an established church. A majority of people residing in the United States when the Constitution was ratified in 1788, as a consequence, were not eligible to vote in American federal elections.

Over the broad course of American history, however, the right to vote has expanded to include virtually every once-excluded group. These democratizing actions took place first at the state level, where poll taxes were gradually eliminated (later reinstituted for African Americans in the South during the Jim Crow period), as were property qualifications and religious tests. By the late 1820s, white male suffrage was universal in the United States. Later, a series of constitutional amendments gradually incorporated other excluded groups. First, former male slaves were granted the right to vote, then women, and finally 18- to 21-year-olds.

Think about the role Congress has played in make voting rights and U.S. citizenship more inclusive.

Now construct a brief argument for or against this proposition: Congress should pass a law granting citizenship and voting rights to law-abiding individuals brought to this country illegally as children. How would you defend your position to a fellow student? What would be your main line of argument? What evidence do you believe best supports your position?

Photo Credits

Page 286: Songquan Deng/Shutterstock; 292: North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy Stock Photo; 294: Olivier Douliery/ ABACAUSA.COM/Newscom; 296: Bettmann/Getty Images; 298: © 2012 Issued by the State Board of Elections, Prepared with the assistance of the Illinois Department of Transportation; 301: ZUMA Press, Inc./ Alamy Stock Photo; 304: Charles Dharapak/AP Images; 309: Charles Dharapak/AP Images; 317: Jay Mallin/ Bloomberg/Getty Images

Related posts

Select at least one student to whom you will administer the informal RTI assessment created in Clinical Field Experience A. Score the assessment and share the results with the student to increase understanding of his or her strengths and areas for improvement.

Examples of nonbiased formal and informal specialized diagnostic assessments that are administered to the students being evaluated, including any legal and ethical requirements.