DOCSLIB.ORG

The American Review of Politics, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The American Review of Politics, Vol Multiple Referral and U.S. House Legislative Success in the 1990s Glen S. Krutz and Courtney L. Cullison We examine the impact of multiple referral on legislative processing in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991-98. Previous literature leaves off with the 1980s, but party control of the House changed in the 1990s and with it, came a new approach to multiple referral. Did this change alter the impact of multiple referral status on bill progression? In the main, our analysis confirms certain previous findings, while adding some interesting new twists. While multiple referral hurts a bill’s chances of success in some stages of statute-making (committee passage, floor passage), a finding consistent with the literature, we find that it provides a boost to chances of receiving com- mittee attention in the first place. Moreover, we find that the hit that multiply-referred bills take in committee and on the floor is much greater than suggested previously. Separate analyses conducted before and after the Republican reforms of 1995 reveal distinct differences. For example, in the Re- publican-controlled environment from 1995-1998, multiple referral bills were slightly more likely to see the House floor, whereas they were less likely to make it in the Democratic House from 1991-94. The ability for the Speaker (and Parliamentarians) to refer bills to more than one committee was among the most visible changes enacted during the 1970s House reforms. Reflecting the tendency of House committees to in- creasingly share issue jurisdictions, this institutional change made sense to many. While the adoption of this reform, like many other changes across congressional history, may be logically traced to the dual goals of improving congressional capacity and appeasing power bases in the committee system (King 1997; Schickler 2001; Smith 1989), understanding the impact of mul- tiple referral is less obvious. On the one hand, it induces committees to share expertise on bills that pertain to more than one committee, which could lead to cooperation and, hence, legislative productivity (King 1997). On the other hand, multiple referral creates more veto points for pieces of legislation as they traverse the daunting legislative process (Rieselbach 1994). We examine the impact of referral from the point at which the literature leaves off—the always fascinating 1990s, which featured three different Speakers and a return to Republican rule. After reviewing the state of the literature on multiple referral, we discuss our design and method. We then ______________ We thank the Political Science Department and the Carl Albert Center at The University of Okla- homa for the general support provided for this study. Stanley Bach, Gary Copeland, Michael Givel, Paul Goren, Patrick Kenney and Cindy Simon Rosenthal provided helpful comments on this subject. We also thank the Editor and three very thorough anonymous reviewers. GLEN S. KRUTZ is the associate director of the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center and an associate professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma. COURTNEY L. CULLISON is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Texas at Tyler. The American Review of Politics, Vol. 29, Spring, 2008: 65-81 ©2008 The American Review of Politics 66 | Glenn Krutz and Courtney Cullison present the findings and conclude with a discussion about the implications of this institutional change. Previous Research The practice of referring bills to more than one committee is a rela- tively new procedure in the House of Representatives. First instituted as part of the 1974 overhaul of committee jurisdictions, multiple referral was in- tended to do several things. First, it was intended to produce better legisla- tion by allowing for input from several different committees and bringing more individuals into the consideration of bills. In addition, it was expected that multiple referrals would encourage cooperation across committees and keep jurisdictional conflicts in check. There was also a political motive—the option of multiply referring a bill was expected to strengthen the Speaker- ship and the Rules Committee (Davidson, Oleszek, and Kephart 1988). Since 1975, multiple referrals have become common in the House, and, as of 1990, accounted for fifteen to twenty percent of all measures intro- duced and reported (Young and Cooper 1993, 213).1 This rising significance led several scholars to turn their attention to the effects of this new congres- sional practice. The joint result of this literature is the conclusion that mul- tiple referrals have affected virtually all aspects of the legislative process, from committee consideration to leadership power and, finally, the success of legislation.2 Committee Consideration Multiple referral has affected the dynamics of committee consideration. Committees now must engage in strategic actions when considering multiple committee measures, or even before a bill has been referred. A committee may choose a strategy of cooptation, seeking to limit or even negate the effect of other committees in the process. If such a strategy is chosen, it will most often take place during the drafting of the legislation. Predictably, this type of strategy increases conflict among committees, intensifying jurisdic- tional disputes and ultimately sounding the defeat of a measure that may have otherwise had a good chance of success (Young and Cooper 1993). A second strategy option for a committee is cooperation. In fact, com- mittees may even interact in a cooperative manner prior to referral. Com- mittee and staff members may be simultaneously involved in the drafting of legislation, or may agree to some sort of pre-referral bargains. These bar- gains may be an agreement about what type of referral to request, or an agreement regarding which sections of the bill will be handled by each com- mittee (Young and Cooper 1988). Multiple Referral and Legislative Success in the 1990s | 67 Once a bill has been formally referred by the Speaker (in reality, the Parliamentarian) and is under consideration by more than one committee, the process may follow a few different paths. Committees for which jurisdic- tional overlap is the norm may proceed differently than committees for which multiple committee legislation is a rarity. Committees often paired by multiple referral are most likely to develop a set of standard practices for handling legislation. Committees that do not often work together may have more divergent perspectives, and thus find it more difficult to process legis- lation (Davidson, Oleszek, and Kephart 1998). Any time a committee receives a bill that has been multiply referred (regardless of the frequency of multiple referrals to the committees), it must closely monitor the other committees handling the bill. If the legislation has broad support, the general pattern is for one committee to take the lead by referring the bill to subcommittee for hearings. The other committees will hold off in their consideration until they are certain that the lead committee wishes to act on the bill (Young and Cooper 1993). It has been observed that committees often directly communicate with each other over the course of bill consideration. This communication can prevent the duplication of effort and streamline the process of committee consideration, as well as further the reconciliation of differences of the com- mittees. However, Young and Cooper (1993) found no evidence of greater occurrence of joint hearings as multiple referrals have become more common. Other scholars have argued that multiple referral has undermined committee autonomy and encouraged committees to guard their territory. Though many committees have developed a set of informal norms that govern joint consideration and reduce open jurisdictional conflict, these understandings do not restore autonomy. Committees that were once free to act independently are now placed in interdependent relationships with two or more committees on a regular basis (Smith and Deering 1990). Floor Action and Conference Multiple committee bills can prove difficult to manage on the floor. Before such a bill can move to the floor, any differences among the com- mittees must be ironed out with compromises, bargains, and prearranged amendment rules (Young and Cooper 1993). If a compromise cannot be reached, the Rules Committee is faced with the decision of which commit- tee’s version to bring to the floor and allowing the other committee’s version to be offered as an amendment. This may result in open conflict on the floor. To avoid this potential hindrance, the Speaker or members of the Rules Committee may step in as a broker or arbitrator (Smith 1989; Young and 68 | Glenn Krutz and Courtney Cullison Cooper 1993). This need for compromise after a bill is reported out of com- mittee is another area where committees have lost autonomy. One committee can no longer determine the context of floor consideration; that is, a single committee may harbor less influence with the Rules Committee on a mul- tiple committee bill. The increase in multiple referral has also contributed to the growth of special rules. One of the most common special rules is the provision for alternative substitutes. Multiple committee bills are seven times more likely to be given such a rule, partially due to their complex and controversial nature (Smith 1989). Restrictive rules have also proved useful in the floor management of multiple committee bills. A restrictive rule can ensure pro- tection of committee compromises, and thus committees may be more will- ing to make such compromises. A restrictive rule can also give committee leaders the option of leaving more controversial provisions in a bill to a floor vote without fear that the entire bill will be dismantled (Young and Cooper 1993). Multiple referral may also affect the House beyond their passage of a bill. If a bill survives both House and Senate floor consideration, House con- ferees may be disadvantaged if the bill was handled by multiple committees.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How a Bill Becomes a Law – Reality Version
    How a Bill Becomes Law (textbook version) Source: Lexis-Nexis Congressional Universe, URL: http://web.lexis- nexis.com/congcomp/form/cong/h_law.html?_m=48bf77a4c5b7a2bcb4bf36d348aa3b54 &wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkSA&_md5=11b90e1a6333544b397469132966b0ef How a Bill Becomes a Law – Reality Version MOTIVATING FACTORS BEHIND LEGISLATION Party leadership leaders in House (Speaker, majority leader, minority leader) or Senate (majority and minority leaders) wish to fulfill their agenda through passing legislation, and/or to score political points vs. other party in eyes of media, public; more important in House than in Senate Individual members members are “single minded seekers of reelection,” passing legislation is one way to show effectiveness to constituents (credit claiming); members may also support someone else’s bill in exchange for that member’s support (log rolling) Committees committees exist to develop expertise within each chamber on specific issues, can use this expertise to push a particular policy President as leader of his party, the President has his own agenda and seeks to fulfill it through congressional action Issue networks includes any entity that is concerned about a particular policy area: • House committee(s) – one or more committees responsible for specific policy area, Budget and Appropriations committees also involved (jurisdiction is often overlapping, see multiple referrals) • Senate committee(s) – the Senate and House are fiercely independent of each other; in recent years Senate has been more politically moderate (esp.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-16-155, IRS Referral Programs
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters February 2016 IRS REFERRAL PROGRAMS Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Controls and Increase Coordination across Overlapping Programs GAO-16-155 February 2016 IRS REFERRAL PROGRAMS Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Controls and Increase Coordination across Overlapping Programs Highlights of GAO-16-155, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Reports by the public of suspected Information referrals from the public alleging tax noncompliance must be underreporting of taxes or other tax submitted on paper forms by mail to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). These violations can help IRS detect millions referrals are manually screened by clerical staff and routed by mail to units of dollars in taxes that would otherwise across IRS for further action, as shown in the figure. go uncollected. Productive referrals can help address the net $385 billion tax gap—the difference between the Process for Screening and Routing Information Referrals for Further Review amount of taxes paid voluntarily on time and the amount owed. IRS received about 87,000 information referrals in fiscal year 2015. GAO was asked to assess the overall effectiveness of the information referral process. This report (1) describes IRS’s process for screening and routing information referrals; (2) assesses the controls for the information referral screening and routing process; and (3) evaluates the coordination between the information referral process, the Whistleblower Office, and other IRS referral programs. GAO reviewed IRS Ineffective internal controls undercut IRS management of the information referral guidance, processes, and controls for process. IRS does not have an organizational structure for information referrals the information referral process, with clear leadership for defining objectives and outcomes for measuring cost- assessed whether IRS’s processes effectiveness and results.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Procedure and Statutory Interpretation Larry Evans
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1993 Congressional Procedure and Statutory Interpretation Larry Evans Jarrell Wright Neal Devins William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Evans, Larry; Wright, Jarrell; and Devins, Neal, "Congressional Procedure and Statutory Interpretation" (1993). Faculty Publications. 431. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/431 Copyright c 1993 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs 239 CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURE AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Larry Evans • Jarrell Wright • • Neal Devins • • • ight years ago, a seemingly uneventful Supreme Court decision, Chevron, E USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1 prompted a watershed debate over the role of administrative agencies in ascertaining legislative intent. In Chevron, a unanimous Supreme Court recognized broad agency power to interpret often ambiguous statutory language, holding that' 'permissible'' agency interpretations are controlling unless Congress has spoken to "the precise question at issue. " 2 Counterbalancing this apparent elevation of agency interpretation at the expense of judicial interpretation, however, Chevron made clear that judicial analysis of legislative history is wholly appropriate in determining legislative intent: "If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory consideration, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect. " 3 Chevron's recognition of a potentially broad judicial role likely explains the Court's unanimity. It also explains why, as Judge Patricia Wald observed in her analysis of post-Chevron decisionmaking, the Supreme C"ourt still relies on legislative history in many of its statutory construction cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdictional History of the Committee
    Jurisdictional History of the Committee his appendix presents a narrative jurisdictional history of the T Committee on Ways and Means from its creation in 1789 as a select committee to its condition in 1989. House Rule X, Clause 1 (v) of the Rules of the House for the One Hundred First Congress, delin- eates the Ways and Means Committee’s current jurisdiction as follows: 1. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery. 2. Reciprocal trade agreements. 3. Revenue measures generally. 4. Revenue measures relating to the insular possessions. 5. The bonded debt of the United States (subject to the last sentence of clause 4(g) of this rule). 6. The deposit of public moneys. 7. Transportation of dutiable goods. 8. Tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts. 9. National social security, except (A) health care and facilities programs that are supported from general revenues as opposed to payroll deductions and (B) work incentive programs. Clause 4(g) of House Rule X relates to procedures for setting the national debt limit triggered by House adoption of a congressional budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. Since its creation as a select committee in 1789, and its formal reconstitution as a standing committee in 1802, the Committee on Ways and Means has had its formal jurisdiction revised several times, typically when the House has adopted changes to, or conducted a re- codification of, the Rules of the House. However, the committee’s ju- risdictional responsibilities have more often been changed through precedent, as determined by referral patterns of measures. In these cases the committee has usually gained additional responsibilities.2 The following chronological history accounts for, and details, the development of the Ways and Means Committee’s subject responsibil- ities and jurisdictional language, both as included in House Rules and as accrued through referrals that seemingly set precedent.
    [Show full text]
  • Hcr91-H-Rpt-98-41-Pt-2-Rules-Cmte
    98TH18t Se$sionCoxahtU~ss ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1 RE|r.41 Part 98- 2 FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET- FISCAL YEAR 1984 MARCH 21, 1983.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. PEPPER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following REPORT together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany House Concurrent Resolution 91] The Committee on Rules, to whom was referred House Concurrent Resolution 91, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the concurrent resolution do pass. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules oter Budget Enforcement Procedures During the last few years, the first budget resolution has been used as the vehicle for enactment, on an ad hoc basis, of novel and far reaching budget enforcement procedures. These procedures, including for example reconciliation instructions in a first budget resolution, binding credit budget ceilings, and de- ferred enrollment of bills that breach S302 spending allocations and subdivisions, have drastically altered the Budget Act and significantly affected the operations of almost every committee of the House. Clause 1 (q) of Rule X vests in the Committee on Rules legislative jurisdiction over all matters affecting the Rules of the House, the Joint Rules, and the order of business. In addition, the Committee reported the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) and therefore possesses jurisdiction over any leg- islation affecting the operation of that Act, in the Congress. The Com- uittee therefore has jurisdiction over budget procedures inserted in a (1) first budget resolution not specifically authorized by the Budget Act, that affect the operation of the Act or the Rules of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • House Practice
    Chapter 11 Committees A. GENERALLY; ESTABLISHING COMMITTEES § 1. The Committee System; Standing, Select, and Joint Committees § 2. Establishing Committees § 3. Committee Expenses; Funding B. CHAIRS, MEMBERS, AND STAFF; ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS § 4. In General; Membership and Seniority § 5. Numerical Composition of Committees; Party Ratios § 6. The Chair’s Role § 7. Committee Employees and Staff C. COMMITTEE FUNCTIONS; JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY § 8. Legislative Jurisdiction § 9. Oversight Jurisdiction § 10. Investigative Jurisdiction and Authority § 11. Standing Committees § 12. Select Committees § 13. — Particular Uses of Select Committees § 14. Joint Committees D. PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEES § 15. Committee Rules; Applicable House Rules § 16. Records, Files, and Transcripts; Disclosure and Disposition; Member Access § 17. Meetings § 18. — Consideration and Debate; Voting § 19. Hearings § 20. Hearings and Meetings as Open or Closed § 21. Quorum Requirements § 22. — In Ordering a Report to the House § 23. — Points of Order Based on Reporting Requirements § 24. Witnesses 239 §1 HOUSE PRACTICE § 25. — Rights or Privileges of Witnesses § 26. — Proceedings Against Recalcitrant Witnesses § 27. Media Coverage of Hearings and Meetings E. COMMITTEE REPORTS § 28. In General § 29. Form and Contents of Report § 30. Comparative Prints; The Ramseyer Rule § 31. Printing; Referral to Calendars § 32. Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views § 33. Filing Reports § 34. Calling Up; Time to Report § 35. Availability (‘‘Layover’’) Requirements § 36. Points of Order Relating to Reports Research References 4 Hinds §§ 4019-4703 7 Cannon §§ 1721-2170; 8 Cannon §§ 2171-2317 Deschler Ch 17 Manual §§ 714-814, 816, 816a, 816b, 816c, 817, 831-863 A. Generally; Establishing Committees § 1. The Committee System; Standing, Select, and Joint Commit- tees The Role of Committees The committee system is as old as the House itself, having been pat- terned after the English House of Commons, the colonial assemblies, and the Continental Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Jurisdiction and Referral in the Senate
    Committee Jurisdiction and Referral in the Senate June 10, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46815 SUMMARY R46815 Committee Jurisdiction and Referral in the June 10, 2021 Senate Mark J. Oleszek When legislation is introduced in the Senate or received from the House, referral to a standing Analyst on Congress and committee is governed primarily by the jurisdictional statements contained in paragraph 1 of the Legislative Process Senate Rule XXV. These statements define the policy subjects on which each standing committee may exercise jurisdiction on behalf of the Senate. The statements themselves tend to address broad policy areas rather than specific departments, agencies, or programs of the federal government. Because committee jurisdiction often is expressed in general policy terms, it is possible for more than one committee to claim jurisdiction over different aspects of a broad subject that may encompass a myriad of specific programs and activities. While the jurisdiction of Senate committees is established in Rule XXV, the referral of legislation is governed by Rule XVII. That rule provides for measures to be referred “in favor of the committee which has jurisdiction over the subject matter which predominates in such proposed legislation.” The predominant subject of a bill generally is determined by the subject it addresses at greatest length, but if revenue provisions are included then the Finance Committee would receive the bill on referral. Any number of subjects may be addressed in a given measure, but only one of those subjects can be considered to “predominate” in the legislative text. It is this determination of subject matter predominance and its connection to the jurisdictional statements of Rule XXV that governs how measures are referred.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Regular Order”: a Perspective
    The “Regular Order”: A Perspective November 6, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46597 SUMMARY R46597 The “Regular Order”: A Perspective November 6, 2020 Many contemporary lawmakers urge a return to “regular order” lawmaking. In general, the regular order refers to a traditional, committee-centered process of lawmaking, very Walter J. Oleszek much in evidence during most of the 20th century. Today, Congress has evolved to Senior Specialist in become largely a party-centered institution. Committees remain important, but they are American National less important than previously as “gatekeepers” to the floor. This development Government represents a fundamental “then and now” change in the power dynamics of Capitol Hill. Regular order is generally viewed as a systematic, step-by-step lawmaking process that emphasizes the role of committees: bill introduction and referral to committee; the conduct of committee hearings, markups, and reports on legislation; House and Senate floor consideration of committee-reported measures; and the creation of conference committees to resolve bicameral differences. Many Members and commentators view this sequential pattern as the ideal or “best practices” way to craft the nation’s laws. Regular order is a lawmaking process that promotes transparency, deliberation, and the wide participation of Members in policy formulation. Significant deviations from the textbook model of legislating—common in this party-centric period—might be called “irregular,” “nontraditional,” “unorthodox,” or “unconventional” lawmaking. The well- known “Schoolhouse Rock” model of legislating still occurs, but its prominence has declined compared with the rise of newer, party leadership-directed processes. Regular or irregular procedures can successfully be used to translate ideas into laws.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Working with the Congress of the Future
    Working with the Congress of the Future (Remarks of U.S. Circuit Judge Frank M. Coffin of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit at the Bicentennial Conference of Judges of the United States Courts of Appeals, Washington, DC, October, 26, 1988) It is safe to say that the happiness, effectiveness, stability, and independence of the federal judiciary depend to a very large extent on Congress. If it is sensitive and responsive to our needs we shall remain one of the most durable legacies of the Founders of this nation. If it is not, long continued suspicion, underfunding, petty harassment, minute oversight, and capricious additions to workload can be the equivalent of a constitutional amendment repealing Article III. Our budget; our conditions of work -- including workload, salary, fringe benefits, restrictions, and discipline; our structural organization, jurisdiction, and procedures -- all are at the disposal of our 535 elected compatriots. All that is safe to say. What is not safe to say is precisely how we should try to live and work with this sister branch that means so much to us. Our Committee on the Judicial Branch of the United States Judicial Conference recently sponsored, with the Brookings Institution, a colloquium on judiciary-congressional relations. The papers and proceedings of that event have been, with assistance from the Governance Institute, collected, and presented in a book, edited by Robert Katzmann, Judges and Legislators: Toward Institutional Comity. That book underscores the obstacles to communication and understanding that have made the present state of health between our two branches, to quote my own words, "if not an acute crisis, ..
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 141 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1995 No. 1 House of Representatives This being the day fixed by the 20th The CLERK. Representatives-elect, their presence by electronic device and amendment to the Constitution for the this is the day fixed by the 20th amend- also to vote on the election of the annual meeting of the Congress of the ment to the Constitution and Public speaker. United States, the Members-elect of Law 103±395 for the meeting of the 104th There was no objection. the 104th Congress met in their Hall, Congress and, as the law directs, the The CLERK. Without objection, the and at 12 noon, were called to order by Clerk of the House has prepared the of- Representatives-elect will record their the Clerk of the House of Representa- ficial roll of the Representatives-elect. presence by electronic device and their tives, the Honorable Donnald K. Ander- Certificates of election covering 428 names will be reported in alphabetical son. seats in the 104th Congress have been order by States, beginning with the The Chaplain, Rev. James David received by the Clerk of the House, and State of Alabama, to determine wheth- Ford, D.D., offered the following pray- the names of those persons whose cre- er a quorum is present. er: dentials show that they were regularly There was no objection. With gratefulness and praise and elected as Representatives in accord- The CLERK.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lawmaking Congress
    THE LAWMAKING CONGRESS ROGER H. DAVIDSON* I INTRODUcTION Among all the world's national assemblies, the United States Congress is virtually unique in its legislative activism and productivity. Unlike Westminster- style parliamentary bodies, it writes, processes, and refines its own legislative products, relying to a large degree on "in-house" resources of member specialization and staff assistance. Congress's primacy as lawmaker is mandated by the Constitution and validated by historical experience. Focusing upon the legislative work of Congress follows Woodrow Wilson's admonition that we pay attention to "what Congress actually does and how it does it, with all its duties and all its occupations, with all its devices of management and resources of power. ' 1 Congress's agenda and workload shape not only the behavior and operations of the Senate and House of Representatives but also the two chambers' relationships with other governmental branches. Articles I and II of the Constitution are devoted largely to outlining the interwoven lawmaking duties of the legislative and executive branches-from initiation ("[The president] shall from time to time ...recommend to [Congress's] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient., 2) to implementation ("[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. .")? Beginning with George Washington, purposeful presidents have always tried to insert themselves into the legislative process. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors institutionalized the "legislative presidency"; 4 today's chief executives are expected to present legislative agendas to Congress and to provide Capitol Hill allies with guidance and leadership. Congressional interactions with the judiciary are no less significant.
    [Show full text]
  • Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts
    Order Code RL32112 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts October 15, 2003 nam eredacted Specialist on the Congress Colton Campbell nameredac te d nameredacted Analysts in American National Government Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Reorganization of the Senate: Modern Reform Efforts Summary Numerous reviews of the operations and structure of the Senate have been conducted in the past 60 years. Three joint committees, two select committees, two commissions, one study group, one standing committee, and party conferences have studied various aspects of the Senate and its committee system. The contemporary Senate is primarily a product of two major laws and a significant overhaul of Senate Rules. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, among other things, codified committee jurisdictions, streamlined the committee system, and instituted a professional committee staffing structure. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 opened Congress to public scrutiny, modified committee and floor procedures, and enhanced Congress’s research and budget capabilities. The work of the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System (Stevenson Committee) resulted in major changes in Senate committee jurisdiction. Other overhaul efforts had a narrower scope or were disregarded at the time of the activity. The work of the Commission on the Operation of the Senate (Culver Commission) focused on the administrative structure of the Senate. The Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures (Pearson-Ribicoff Study Group) issued a wide-ranging set of recommendations concerning Senate Rules and procedures. The Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System (Quayle Committee) addressed committee assignments.
    [Show full text]