The Effects of Bicameralism on U.S. Appropriations Policies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE EFFECTS OF BICAMERALISM ON U.S. APPROPRIATIONS POLICIES by MARK EDWARD OWENS (Under the Direction of Jamie L. Carson) ABSTRACT This dissertation examines how supermajority rules interact with other institutional constraints. I study appropriations policies to better understand how the content of legislation develops in response to bicameral differences over a one-hundred and four year period. As each chamber has developed independently of one another, the institutional differences that have emerged have had a dynamic impact on the lawmaking process. The time frame of the study, 1880 to 1984, is particularly important because it captures the years when the Senate grew to play a more active role in the legislative process and a number of key budgetary reforms. To study this phenomenon empirically, I measure how regular appropriations bills were packaged differently by the House and Senate from 1880 to 1984 and compare the final enactment to the difference in chamber proposals to determine the magnitude of a chamber’s leverage on enacted policy changes. By treating the Senate’s choice to amend the House version as a selection effect, we can examine the effect bicameralism has on policy outcomes. Specifically, I analyze a ratio that represents how close the final bill is to the Senate version, given the size of the bicameral distance. Finally, I complete the study by examining how the president influences bicameral negotiations and how bicameralism complicates our theories of intra-branch relations. INDEX WORDS: Appropriations, Bicameralism, Budgeting, Polarization, Senate THE EFFECTS OF BICAMERALISM ON U.S. APPROPRIATIONS POLICIES by MARK EDWARD OWENS B.A., University of Florida, 2006 M.A., Johns Hopkins University, 2008 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY ATHENS, GEORGIA 2014 © 2014 Mark Edward Owens All Rights Reserved THE EFFECTS OF BICAMERALISM ON U.S. APPROPRIATIONS POLICIES by MARK EDWARD OWENS Major Professor: Jamie L. Carson Committee: Keith T. Poole Anthony J. Madonna James E. Monogan, III Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2014 DEDICATION For my mother and father iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must begin by acknowledging my deep appreciation for the many individuals who have invested undocumented hours and support into the completion of this project. My interest in studying political institutions is a combination of the experiences I have had and the mentorship of many individuals along the way. For example, I often reminded of a discussion I had with former U.S. Representative Charles Bass when I was applying to graduate school, where he told me I needed to spend two more years at least in Washington to fully understand the rules. As a slow learner I decided to dedicate an entire doctoral study to learning the intricacies of these institutional rules and dissertation to understanding how policies are affected by these rules. There are many faculty members that I am indebted to for the time they have invested in my education since I first arrived to Athens, Georgia. My major professor, Jamie Carson, has been an exceptional mentor since I began as his research assistant on my first day. Jamie’s guidance, patience, good humor, and great taste in food have been invaluable to building my confidence in discussing politics and how enjoyable this profession can be. Similarly, the mentorship of Charles Bullock and Anthony Madonna has shown me how I can integrate my experience from working in Washington D.C. and on campaigns by sharing stories that highlight important theoretical concepts about politics. My dissertation committee also included Keith Poole and Jamie Monogan who not only took an interest in my work, but have dedicated their time to the professionalization of all graduate students to prepare us for what is to come once we graduate. I will miss the trivia questions, red suspenders, tall tales of old politicians, and election v night parties. But I leave it to the reader to identify which event corresponds with a member of this dynamic group. This project has also been shaped by conversations with other scholars, including Ryan Bakker, Sarah Binder, Harold Clarke, Doug Dion, Keith Dougherty, Jim Granato, Michael Lynch, Daniel Magleby, Elizabeth Rybicki, Jim Saturno, and Jason Windett. For a project that is about appropriations and bicameralism in the United States, it may seem odd to mention the importance of my studies in England. However, as a visiting graduate student at the University of Oxford the opportunity to discuss and present my research with Ray Duch, Iain McLean, Nigel Bowles, and Alan Ware was beneficial to make sure this was a worthwhile project to a broader audience. It was also a great opportunity to be challenged by peers like Black Ewing, Richard Johnson, and Ursula Hackett at the Rothermere American Institute and Nuffield College. I am also grateful for the willingness of Sarah Binder, Rod Kiewiet, Mathew McCubbins, Eric Schickler, and Gregory Wawro to make their data available to begin this project. I also owe particular thanks to a core group of graduate students including, Robert Cooper, David Gelman, Karen Owen, Stephen Pettigrew, Joel Sievert and Szymon Stojek – each excellent individuals – all kept me accountable through our discussion about research and teaching. They also gave time to the development of this project in addition to their own studies. This project has also benefited from the financial support of the University of Georgia Graduate School, through the Dean’s Award for Social Science Research and the Association of Centers for the Study of Congress, which supported my trips to visit the National Archives in Washington and Briscoe Center in Austin, Texas. Above all, I must thank my family. My parents have taught me to take interest in and care for the needs of others, as well as reinforced the importance of higher education in my own vi life. The comfort I have to take risks and venture off in efforts to begin a new career has been possible because of the continuous support I received from my parents and, yes even, my two late-grandmothers. The opportunity to live in my grandmother’s guest bedroom allowed me to take advantage of summer internships in the House of Representatives and the Senate to keep my interest in the political process. Each of those summer experiences made it easy for me to move to Washington D.C. and try to start a career that would give me stories to share in the classroom. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1 PIVOTAL CHAMBER: THE U.S. SENATE AND APPROPRIATIONS .................... 1 A Difference in the Development of Majority Rule in the House and Senate ................. 3 A Necessary Component of Good Governance: Appropriations ...................................... 7 Origination of Appropriations........................................................................................... 9 Annual Consideration of Appropriation Bills ................................................................ 11 Isolating the Senate’s Role in the Appropriation Process .............................................. 14 Plan for Dissertation ...................................................................................................... 17 2 BUDGETING VS. APPROPRIATIONS: COMPETING APPROACHES TO FEDERAL SPENDING ...................................................................................... 20 The Early Appropriation Process: Dynamics of Bargaining Under Different Rules..... 23 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 ........................................................................ 27 Bow Amendment: Institutionalizing Caps on Expenditures as Early as 1967 .............. 30 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 .................................................. 32 viii Lessons Learned from Bargains during 1880-1984: Spending Caps and PAYGO ....... 34 Spending Caps, Sequestration, and PAYGO ................................................................. 35 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 36 3 THE DYNAMIC INFLUENCE OF THE SENATE ON POLICY OUTCOMES ........ 39 Studying the Senate’s Influence ..................................................................................... 41 Individual Member Policy Influence in the Senate ........................................................ 42 Likelihood of Bicameral Disagreement ......................................................................... 46 Bicameralism and Policy Outcomes .............................................................................. 47 Chamber Differences ..................................................................................................... 49 Contextual Dynamics ..................................................................................................... 52 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................