Reclamation of the U.S. Congress 176 Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs Policy Report Project Number 176 The Reclamation of the U.S. Congress Project Directed By: Angela M. Evans Contributors: Brandon Archuleta Jocelyn Kuhn Christine Barrett Peter La Fountain Lara Bell Thomas Lightfield Martha J. Berry Lauren Menasco-Davis Andrea Dewald Michael Mortensen Jeanie Donovan Sam Spahn Gustavo Fernandez Vanessa Stotts Kelsey Hawley Alycia Welch Graduate Assistant: Anna Lipton Galbraith ISBN-13: 978-0-89940-794-4 ©2013 by The University of Texas at Austin All rights reserved. No part of this publication or any corresponding electronic text and/or images may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the U.S.A Acknowledgements From the Students This report could not have been produced without the guidance and support of a number of individuals. First, we would like to thank Frank Mackaman of the Dirksen Congressional Center for the generous financial support of this project. The funding allowed us to host meetings with congressional experts that were critical for informing the final product. We could not have organized these exchanges without this support. We want to express our deep appreciation to Speaker James Wright, who traveled to Austin to generously spend three hours speaking with us. His insights regarding the time he served in the Congress and reflections on the institution significantly informed our work. We are also deeply grateful to Walter Oleszek from the Congressional Research Service, who has supported this project since its inception more than a year ago. Mr. Oleszek served as an advisor throughout the research and writing process, and we appreciate the extraordinary amount of time he spent lending his expertise to our project. We also owe a great deal of appreciation to Don Wolfensberger from the Bipartisan Policy Center and Scott Lilly from the Center for American Progress for serving as advisors to the project, and for traveling to Austin to share their knowledge. In addition, we would like to thank John Fortier of the Bipartisan Policy Center for supporting the project. We would like to express our gratitude to Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senator John Glenn, and Senator John Cornyn for taking the time to meet with us during their time at the University of Texas. All three Members were generous with their time, and we appreciate their willingness to engage in candid conversations about the Congress. Their insights were invaluable. We would also like to thank Scott Noble, President of Noble Royalties Inc., for generously sponsoring Speaker Gingrich to visit the University of Texas at Austin to meet with us. During the course of the project, we also benefited from the expertise of Jennifer Lake, William Painter, and William Heniff from the Congressional Research Service, who provided us with technical expertise and patiently answered our lengthy questions. We would also like to thank Professor Sean Theriault from the Government Department at University of Texas at Austin, and Mark McKinnon, the cofounder of No Labels. Both gentlemen were generous enough to spend a class period meeting with us, and provided us with valued feedback on our research. We would also like to give special thanks to Anna Lipton Galbraith, the Graduate Research Assistant on the project, for her consistent guidance and support throughout the year. Finally, we would like to express our deepest appreciate to Professor Evans, who expanded our understanding of the Congress and taught us to think critically. We would iii not have been able to develop this report without her leadership and vision, and we are grateful that she provided us the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing study of the Congress and its processes. From Professor Evans The students, who made up this class, represent the best and the brightest of the upcoming generation of leaders. They worked tirelessly for nearly one year to learn about the first branch of government and to develop ways that it might better reflect the democratic principles of debate and compromise. When others around them were dismissive of the Congress, expressing cynicism in the ability of the Congress and its Members to address the challenges facing our Nation, these students demonstrated a fundamental optimism in finding ways to improve the institution of the Congress and its processes and governance practices. Their loyalty and dedication to the project and each other was extraordinary. They quickly grasped the need to approach issues objectively, to research thoroughly authoritative sources, and to identify root problems upon which to focus their work. Among the stars in this class, there were several who deserve special recognition for the their consistent willingness to do whatever was needed to move the project forward to a timely completion. Their strong work ethic, sense of commitment, and high standards for quality work are exemplary. Special thanks to: • Martha Berry, who spent countless hours documenting the sources used in the study to ensure accuracy of notation and the creation of a rich repository for the study of the Congress. • Vanessa Stotts, who applied her many talents of program management and researching skills to find obscure information, to develop and oversee travel and site arrangements for our spring workshop, and to teach us new ways of creating and producing content. • Alycia Welch, who assumed significant writing responsibilities throughout the project ensuring that text made sense, was supportable, and was presented concisely. • Jocelyn Kuhn, who willingly volunteered throughout the study to improve and enhance the written product of others, often requiring her to undertake new research across all of issue areas covered in the study. I have been honored to work with a talented group of students, whom, I am certain will contribute greatly throughout their lives to the public good. iv Table of Contents Executive Summary vii Introduction 1 Historical Analysis 9 Agenda Setting 9 Increased Control of the Agenda By Majority Party Leadership 9 Internal and External Pressures that Influence the Agenda 13 Use of the Oversight Function 17 The Budget and Appropriations Processes 20 Balancing Executive and Legislative Control of the Budget 21 and Appropriations Processes Centralized versus Decentralized Congressional Budget 28 and Appropriations Processes Controlling Growth in Mandatory Spending and Federal Deficits 35 Deliberations 39 Balancing Efficiency in the Deliberative Process and Ensuring 39 Minority Participation The Decline of Deliberation by Committees 47 Staffing 57 The Expansion of Congressional Staff and Support Agencies 58 Staff Management and Resource Pooling 64 Reform Proposals 69 Part One: Tensions, Problems and Options 69 Agenda Setting Recurring Tensions 69 Problems and Reform Options 70 Budget and Appropriations Recurring Tensions 70 Problems and Reform Options 71 v Deliberations Recurring Tensions 71 Problems and Reform Options 72 Additional Reform Options 73 Staffing Recurring Tensions 73 Problems and Reform Options 73 Part Two: Analysis of Reform Options 74 Agenda Setting 74 Budget and Appropriations 83 Deliberations 98 Staffing 113 Appendix A 122 Appendix B 128 Bibliography 129 Student Profiles 153 vi Executive Summary This report is the result of a ten-month effort undertaken by sixteen graduate students enrolled in a course entitled “The Reclamation of the U.S. Congress.” The course was offered at the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Affairs in the 2012–2013 academic year, and it had five primary objectives: 1) To provide recommendations to the Congress for ways to improve its governance and operations given the current congressional environment. 2) To create an integrated analysis of past formal congressional reform efforts, including the major reorganizations of the Congress in 1946, 1970, and 1994, as well as more recent attempts. 3) To investigate new and emerging challenges that place pressure on the operations of the Congress. 4) To teach students how to be engaged in, and contribute to, congressional deliberations through objective analyses. 5) To create a digital repository of research that focuses on congressional reforms for future use of congressional scholars, experts, and interested citizens. The students conducted the research for this report, developed reform options, and analyzed each reform. They dedicated significant time, energy, and care to ensure their research and analysis was objective, analytic, and authoritative. Unlike other recent formal calls for congressional reform that begin by indicting Members and the Congress as a whole, this report identifies the enduring tensions and forces intrinsic to the Congress, and attempts to mitigate these tensions through adjustments to institutional structures and processes. The research and analysis presented in this report is limited to issues arising from the procedures and governance structures that make up the working environment of the Congress. While more current reforms have included proposals related to campaign financing, redistricting, and primary structures and processes, the research for this project focus on the institution and what Members encounter once elected. Methodology From the start, the research effort focused on how best to assist the Congress should it decide to undertake a formal review of its operations and share that review publicly, as it did in 1946, 1970,and 1994 through the formal reports on the work resulting from specially established of Joint Committees on the Organization of Congress. The goal was to find common concerns addressed by these committees, why these concerns persisted, what reforms the Congress accepted—what reforms were rejected, what outcomes these reforms effected, and how these past efforts inform modern attempts at reform. Limitations vii Given the objectives of the research and the resource constraints under which the class worked, both in time and funding, the report has some noteworthy constraints. • The focus of the analysis is on the U.S.