DOCSLIB.ORG

The “Regular Order”: a Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. They can be employed to enact partisan or bipartisan legislation. Neither is necessarily better than the other as a lawmaking approach. Much depends on contextual (e.g., divided or unified government) and situational factors (e.g., statutory deadlines or national crises). Sometimes, regular order is observed for problem-solving; on other occasions, nontraditional lawmaking may be the best or only way to pass legislation. Or a combination of both could be employed to achieve legislative objectives. In short, the regular order can be an elusive and changeable concept. People may legitimately contend that there is no such thing as the regular order for enacting laws. No legislative process or procedure can ensure that outcome. Moreover, the term is defined neither by the Constitution nor in House and Senate rules. As the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 5) authoritatively states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Accordingly, lawmakers who muster sufficient support and votes have wide freedom to create or change parliamentary rules, precedents, and norms. Since at least the mid-1990s, if not earlier (e.g., the early 1980s), nontraditional lawmaking has surged in both legislative chambers. Why? In large measure because a sharper, combative form of partisan and ideological polarization gradually emerged both in Congress and the country. Regular order legislating through bipartisan compromise is often harder to achieve in a polarized legislative environment. Today, major policy and political disagreements between the two parties are at times so wide and deep on many issues that gridlock can be the result. In response, the majority party may turn to nontraditional processes, in whole or in part, to advance the legislative agenda. Nontraditional processes have their own virtues, such as expedition over deliberation. An oft-used measure of partisan polarization is “party unity”: roll call votes on which a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans align against each other. Annually, CQ Weekly compiles, analyzes, and publishes the party unity scores. For example, partisan voting in 2019 for the Democratic- controlled House was a record-setting 95% compared with 58% of partisan votes in 1972; for the GOP-controlled Senate, 94% of Republicans in 2019 voted with their party against the other party; in 1972, 62% of votes split Republicans from Democrats. Congress functions on occasion like a parliamentary or quasi-parliamentary body, where the majority party governs and the minority party opposes. With party unity high, each side might employ any number of procedural Congressional Research Service The “Regular Order”: A Perspective tactics either to prevail or to stymie action. Parliamentary warfare is often the result, w ith each party turning to nontraditional procedures (bypassing committee consideration, for example, or limiting floor amendments) to achieve desired results. The centrality of partisan polarization has provoked an adaptive response common to both chambers: set aside regular order legislating as circumstances warrant and employ unorthodox procedures to advance party and policy priorities. In brief, the broad purposes of this report are to provide various perspectives on the meaning of the “regular order”; to discuss an array of nontraditional procedures that characterize decisionmaking in the contemporary House and Senate; to examine the forces and factors that gave rise to party polarization and wider use of nonconventional legislating; and, lastly, to offer summary observations about the transformation of contemporary lawmaking. Congressional Research Service The “Regular Order”: A Perspective Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 The Shift to Party Government .................................................................................... 2 Illustrative Instances: Rise of New Procedures .......................................................... 3 Summing Up ............................................................................................................ 4 Purposes of the Report: A Look Ahead..................................................................... 5 General Background ........................................................................................................ 6 Overview ................................................................................................................. 6 Unorthodox Lawmaking Gains Prominence: A Brief Review ...................................... 8 The Textbook Model........................................................................................... 11 Summing Up .......................................................................................................... 13 Selected Constitutional Provisions ................................................................................... 13 Interpretative Disagreements ..................................................................................... 15 Settled Practice ............................................................................................................. 17 Procedural Routines: House ...................................................................................... 17 Procedural Flexibility: Senate .................................................................................... 19 Informal Chamber Guidelines.................................................................................... 20 Unanimous Consent Agreements: From Informal Practice to Formal Rule................... 21 Regular Order: Multiple Perspectives ............................................................................... 23 Prelude .................................................................................................................. 23 Selected Definitions ................................................................................................. 23 Regular Order Can Provoke Irregular Order................................................................. 25 GOP Control...................................................................................................... 25 Democratic Control ............................................................................................ 25 Nontraditional Lawmaking: Several Advantages........................................................... 26 Features of “New Normal” Legislating ............................................................................. 28 Congressional Committees........................................................................................ 28 Unreported Bills Considered in the House .............................................................. 29 Senate Rule XIV: Bypassing Bill Referral to Committee .......................................... 30 Ad Hoc “Gangs” ................................................................................................ 30 Creative “Rules” of the House Rules Committee .......................................................... 31 The Senate.............................................................................................................. 33 Filibusters ......................................................................................................... 34 Cloture ............................................................................................................. 34 The 60-Vote Senate............................................................................................. 36 The “Nuclear Option” Is Detonated (2013, 2017, 2019)...........................................
Recommended publications
  • Appeal/Grievance Process – Member Appeals Committee Responsible Party: T

    Appeal/Grievance Process – Member Appeals Committee Responsible Party: T

    _________________________________________ APPROVAL as appropriate: Board _________ Exec Dir _________ Med Dir _________ Other Dir/Mgr _________ _________________________________________ REVIEWED BY LEGAL COUNSEL Yes ___ No ___ Date: x Name: x __________________________________________ POLICY STATUS: _x__ Approved ___Pending Policy and Procedure Title: Appeal/Grievance Process – Member Appeals Committee Responsible Party: T. Rumler/S. Sinnett Div/Dept/Serv Area: Member Services Volume: III Number: INS.MS.001 Date of Issue: 6/93 Page 1 of 8 Formerly A2a.015 (7/08)/MS.001 (4/12) NCQA UM 8 A PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is: 1. To document the role of the Member Appeals Committee in the grievance process of Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin (GHC-SCW). 2. To document the policies and procedures for thorough, appropriate and timely registering and resolution of member appeals. DEFINITIONS: 1. Adverse Determination means an adverse benefit determination [as defined in 29 CFR 2560.503-1], as well as any rescission of coverage, as described in § 147.128 (whether or not, in connection with the rescission, there is an adverse effect on any particular benefit at that time). 2. Appeal/Grievance means a request for GHC-SCW to review an Adverse Determination. 3. Post-Service Appeal means a request to change an Adverse Determination for care or services that have already been received by the member. 4. Pre-Service Appeal is a request to change an Adverse Determination for care or service that GHC-SCW must approve, in whole or in part, in advance of the member obtaining care or services. POLICY: 1. The Member Appeals Committee is the adjudicating body for GHC-SCW’s grievance process.
  • Session from Hell by Arnold Hamilton These Are the Raw Numbers: the Lawmakers Consider Sacrosanct: Cor- Legislature’S 101 House Members Porate Welfare

    Session from Hell by Arnold Hamilton These Are the Raw Numbers: the Lawmakers Consider Sacrosanct: Cor- Legislature’S 101 House Members Porate Welfare

    $2.50 25,000 Blue Chip Readers VOL. 42, NO. 2 An Independent Journal of Commentary JANUARY 25, 2010 Wingnuts And Corporatists Session From Hell By Arnold Hamilton These are the raw numbers: The lawmakers consider sacrosanct: cor- Legislature’s 101 House members porate welfare. and 48 senators filed 2,235 bills and The state has created a cornucopia 59 resolutions in advance of the 2010 of tax exemptions – including sales session that opens Feb. 1. taxes on newspapers – that benefit Toss in the 1,051 bills and 86 res- the supposedly free-market Chamber olutions left over from last year and crowd. When GOP Sen. Mike Mazzei lawmakers could take up as many as of Tulsa tried to repeal them and start 3,431 measures this year – or one for over, he discovered neither Republi- just about every little Oklahoma town cans nor Democrats were much inter- the size of Medford or Fairland, Wister ested in disappointing wealthy busi- or Hydro. ness interests and deep-pocketed As impressive – or depressing – as campaign donors. the sheer magnitude of legislative Don’t be surprised if the GOP lead- creativity may be, there’s really only ership targets education, despite lip one number that is important to know service to the contrary. The corporat- heading into this session: 1.3 billion. ists in charge are not beyond using That’s the size of the projected hole the crisis to attempt to bring their – in dollars – in the 2010-11 budget, arch-enemies, the state’s teachers down from a $7.1 billion spending unions, to their knees.
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History

    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
  • Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3D ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D

    Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3D ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D

    No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS et al., Appellants, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA et al., Appellees. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EDWARD STILL JAMES U. BLACKSHER 130 Wildwood Parkway Counsel of Record Suite 108 PMB 304 P.O. Box 636 Birmingham, AL 35209 Birmingham, AL 35201 E-mail: [email protected] 205-591-7238 Fax: 866-845-4395 PAMELA S. KARLAN E-mail: 559 Nathan Abbott Way [email protected] Stanford, CA 94305 E-mail: [email protected] U.W. CLEMON WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD P. C . 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state violates the requirement of one person, one vote by enacting a state legislative redis- tricting plan that results in large and unnecessary population deviations for local legislative delegations that exercise general governing authority over coun- ties. ii PARTIES The following were parties in the Court below: Plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-691: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus Bobby Singleton Alabama Association of Black County Officials Fred Armstead George Bowman Rhondel Rhone Albert F. Turner, Jr. Jiles Williams, Jr. Plaintiffs in consolidated Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-1081: Demetrius Newton Alabama Democratic Conference Framon Weaver, Sr. Stacey Stallworth Rosa Toussaint Lynn Pettway Defendants in Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-691: State of Alabama Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State Defendants in consolidated Civil Action No.
  • Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members

    Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members

    Order Code 93-875 Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Updated November 12, 2008 Jack Maskell Legislative Attorney American Law Division Expulsion and Censure Actions Taken by the Full Senate Against Members Summary The authority of the United States Senate (as well as of the House) to establish the rules for its own proceedings, to “punish” its Members for misconduct, and to expel a Member by a vote of two-thirds of Members present and voting, is provided in the Constitution at Article I, Section 5, clause 2. This express grant of authority for the Senate to expel a Senator is, on its face, unlimited — save for the requirement of a two-thirds majority. In the context of what the Supreme Court has characterized as, in effect, an “unbridled discretion” of the body, expulsions in the Senate, as well as the House, have historically been reserved for cases of the most serious misconduct: disloyalty to the government or abuses of one’s official position. The Senate has actually expelled only 15 Members — 14 of those during the Civil War period for disloyalty to the Union (one of these expulsions was subsequently revoked by the Senate), and the other Senator during the late 1700s for disloyal conduct. The House of Representatives has expelled only five Members in its history, three during the Civil War period, one in 1980, and another in 2002, after convictions for bribery and corruption offenses related to official congressional duties. In the Senate, as well as in the House, however, other Members for whom expulsion was recommended have resigned from office prior to official, formal action by the institution.
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE March 5, 1997

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE March 5, 1997

    March 5, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE H739 Blagojevich Hamilton Pease Conyers Johnson, E. B. Pascrell Commandments can be displayed in Govern- Bliley Hansen Peterson (MN) Coyne Kaptur Pastor Blunt Hastert Peterson (PA) Cummings Kennedy (MA) Payne ment buildings, I would have voted ``yes'' had Boehner Hastings (WA) Petri Davis (IL) Kennedy (RI) Pelosi I been present. Bonilla Hayworth Pickering DeFazio Kennelly Pickett Bono Hefley Pitts DeGette Kilpatrick Rangel f Borski Hefner Pombo Delahunt Kind (WI) Rivers Boucher Herger Pomeroy DeLauro Kleczka Rothman ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO Boyd Hill Portman Dellums Kucinich Roybal-Allard COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE Brady Hilleary Poshard Deutsch Levin Sabo Brown (OH) Hinojosa Price (NC) Dicks Lewis (GA) Sanders Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I offer a Bryant Hobson Pryce (OH) Dingell Lofgren Sawyer resolution (H. Res. 82) and I ask unani- Bunning Hoekstra Quinn Dixon Lowey Schumer Burr Holden Radanovich Doggett Luther Scott mous consent for its immediate consid- Burton Hooley Ramstad Dooley Maloney (NY) Serrano eration. Buyer Hostettler Regula Edwards Markey Sherman The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- Callahan Houghton Reyes Engel Martinez Skaggs lows: Calvert Hoyer Riggs Evans Matsui Slaughter Camp Hulshof Riley Fattah McCarthy (MO) Smith, Adam Resolved, That the following named Mem- Campbell Hunter Roemer Fazio McCarthy (NY) Snyder bers be, and they are hereby, elected to the Canady Hutchinson Rogan Foglietta McDermott Stark following standing committee of the House Cannon Hyde Rogers Frank (MA) McGovern Stokes of Representatives: Capps Inglis Rohrabacher Frost McKinney Tauscher Committee on Science: Mr. English of Cardin Istook Ros-Lehtinen Furse McNulty Thompson Castle Jenkins Roukema Gejdenson Meehan Thurman Pennsylvania; Mr.
  • Committee Handbook New Mexico Legislature

    Committee Handbook New Mexico Legislature

    COMMITTEE HANDBOOK for the NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE New Mexico Legislative Council Service Santa Fe, New Mexico 2012 REVISION prepared by: The New Mexico Legislative Council Service 411 State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 986-4600 www.nmlegis.gov 202.190198 PREFACE Someone once defined a committee as a collection of people who individually believe that something must be done and who collectively decide that nothing can be done. Whether or not this definition has merit, it is difficult to imagine the work of a legislative body being accomplished without reliance upon the committee system. Every session, American legislative bodies are faced with thousands of bills, resolutions and memorials upon which to act. Meaningful deliberation on each of these measures by the entire legislative body is not possible. Therefore, the job must be broken up and distributed among the "miniature legislatures" called standing or substantive committees. In New Mexico, where the constitution confines legislative action to a specified number of calendar days, the work of such committees assumes even greater importance. Because the role of committees is vital to the legislative process, it is necessary for their efficient operation that individual members of the senate and house and their staffs understand committee functioning and procedure, as well as their own roles on the committees. For this reason, the legislative council service published in 1963 the first Committee Handbook for New Mexico legislators. This publication is the sixth revision of that document. i The Committee Handbook is intended to be used as a guide and working tool for committee chairs, vice chairs, members and staff.
  • International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts

    International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts

    Article International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts Oona A. Hathawayt, Sabria McElroytt & Sara Aronchick Solowtft I. IN TR O DU CTIO N ................................................................................................................................ 5 1 II. THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT HOME....................................................................56 A . Foundingto W orld War II..............................................................................................57 1. Contract ......................................... ......... 60 2. Property and Inheritance ...................................... 60 3. Detention and Habeas Corpus ................................... 61 4. Right to "Carry on Trade ...................................... 62 B . W orld W ar II to M edellin............................................................................................. 63 1. The Presumption in FavorofEnforcement Weakens....................................... 63 2. The Bricker Backlash .............................................. 68 C. After Medellin ................................................... 70 1. A PresumptionAgainst PrivateRights ofAction..............................................71 2. An End to the Carve-Outfor Private Law ........................... 73 Ill. How INTERNATIONAL LAW COMES HOME................................................................................76 A. Indirect Enforcement .............................................. 77 1. Implementing Legislation ...........................
  • Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021

    Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021

    Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021 Updated January 25, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL30857 Speakers of the House: Elections, 1913-2021 Summary Each new House elects a Speaker by roll call vote when it first convenes. Customarily, the conference of each major party nominates a candidate whose name is placed in nomination. A Member normally votes for the candidate of his or her own party conference but may vote for any individual, whether nominated or not. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all the votes cast for individuals. This number may be less than a majority (now 218) of the full membership of the House because of vacancies, absentees, or Members answering “present.” This report provides data on elections of the Speaker in each Congress since 1913, when the House first reached its present size of 435 Members. During that period (63rd through 117th Congresses), a Speaker was elected six times with the votes of less than a majority of the full membership. If a Speaker dies or resigns during a Congress, the House immediately elects a new one. Five such elections occurred since 1913. In the earlier two cases, the House elected the new Speaker by resolution; in the more recent three, the body used the same procedure as at the outset of a Congress. If no candidate receives the requisite majority, the roll call is repeated until a Speaker is elected. Since 1913, this procedure has been necessary only in 1923, when nine ballots were required before a Speaker was elected.
  • Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: in Brief Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

    Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: in Brief Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process

    Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief name redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process April 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44819 Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture on Nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Related CRS Products ..................................................................................................................... 3 Contacts Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 4 Congressional Research Service Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Introduction On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII to allow a majority of Senators voting, a quorum being present, to invoke cloture on nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before the Senate reinterpreted the rule, ending consideration of nominations to the Supreme Court required a vote of three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy). The practical effect of the Senate action on April 6 was to reduce the level of Senate support necessary
  • Congressional Advisory Boards Commissions, and Groups

    Congressional Advisory Boards Commissions, and Groups

    CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY BOARDS COMMISSIONS, AND GROUPS BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY [Title 10, U.S.C., Section 9355(a)] Ernest F. Hollings, of South Carolina C.W. Bill Young, of Florida Max Cleland, of Georgia Joel Hefley, of Colorado Wayne Allard, of Colorado BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE MILITARY ACADEMY [Title 10, U.S.C., Section 4355(a)] Jack Reed, of Rhode Island Charles H. Taylor, of North Carolina Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana Sue Kelly, of New York Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY [Title 10, U.S.C., Section 6968(a)] Paul Sarbanes, of Maryland Wayne T. Gilchrest, of Maryland Barbara Mikulski, of Maryland Joe Skeen, of New Mexico John McCain, of Arizona BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE COAST GUARD ACADEMY [Title 14 U.S.C., Section 194(a)] Ernest F. Hollings, of South Carolina Rob Simmons, of Connecticut Patty Murray, of Washington Gene Taylor, of Mississippi John McCain, of Arizona Peter G. Fitzgerald, of Illinois BOARD OF VISITORS TO THE MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY [Title 46 U.S.C., Section 1295(b)] John Edwards, of North Carolina Peter T. King, of New York John Breaux, of Louisiana John McCain, of Arizona Olympia J. Snowe, of Maine 485 486 Congressional Directory BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS [Created by Public Law 103–236] 330 Independence Avenue SW, Suite 3360, 20237 phone 401–3736, fax 401–6605 Chairman.—Marc Nathanson. GOVERNORS Tom Korologos Cheryl Halpern Edward Kaufman Colin Powell Robert Mark Ledbetter (ex officio) Norman Pattiz STAFF Executive Director.—Brian Conniff. Legal Counsel.—Carol Booker.
  • CRS Report for Congress Received Through the CRS Web

    CRS Report for Congress Received Through the CRS Web

    Order Code RL30665 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview Updated April 4, 2006 Walter J. Oleszek Senior Specialist in the Legislative Process Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The Role of the House Majority Leader: An Overview Summary The majority leader in the contemporary House is second-in-command behind the Speaker of the majority party. Typically, the majority leader functions as the Speaker’s chief lieutenant or “field commander” for day-to-day management of the floor. Although the majority leader’s duties are not especially well-defined, they have evolved to the point where it is possible to spotlight two fundamental and often interlocking responsibilities that orient the majority leader’s work: institutional and party. From an institutional perspective, the majority leader has a number of duties. Scheduling floor business is a prime responsibility of the majority leader. Although scheduling the House’s business is a collective activity of the majority party, the majority leader has a large say in shaping the chamber’s overall agenda and in determining when, whether, how, or in what order legislation is taken up. In addition, the majority leader is active in constructing winning coalitions for the party’s legislative priorities; acting as a public spokesman — defending and explaining the party’s program and agenda; serving as an emissary to the White House, especially when the President is of the same party; and facilitating the orderly conduct of the House’s business. From a party perspective, three key activities undergird the majority leader’s principal goal of trying to ensure that the party remains in control of the House.