3210 us congress Flashcards
- (Oct 11). Explain three advantages from the use of “megabills.” Please note if these are advantages for some decision-makers but disadvantages for others.
Lawmakers understand that most of the bills they introduce are unlikely as stand alone bills to become law so they conjoin multiple bills into a larger bill to increase chances of passage.
1. Mega bills can be used to hide legislation that otherwise might be more controversial.
2. By packing difficult issues in measures that command broad support, they enable members to avoid hard votes they would have to account for in election time and allow MC’s to avoid angering interest groups.
3. Leaders can also use them to slam-dunk issues that otherwise might be torn apart or pressure the president to accept provisions that he objects to
- (Oct 11). Briefly explain the reasons the House has seen an increase in the use of “creative rules,” and two types of such rules.
Traditionally special rules apply to one bill. Today, one rule could establish the floor procedures for any number of separate and often unrelated bills, each with its own specific procedures. These rules save the time of the house and facilitate majority party management on the floor. Wider use of referrals, which requires Rules to play a larger coordinating role in arranging floor action on legislation; the rise of mega bills that the speaker does not want picked apart from in the floor, desire of majority party leaders to exert greater control over floor procedures; members’ demand for greater certainty in floor decision making; and efforts by committee and majority party leaders either to limit the number of amendments or to keep unfriendly amendments off the floor.
Suspension Day Rule:
This type of rule authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on days other than Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.
Multi-Step Rule:
Type of rule aims to facilitate an orderly amendment process. One variation is for the rules committee to first report a rule that regulates general debate on a bill and then report another follow-on rule to govern the amending process to the measure. Another variation is for Rules to publicly state that if a measure encounters difficulty on the floor, the panel will report a subsequent rule that limits time for further debate/further amendments.
- (Oct 13). Briefly explain what you consider to be two significant differences between House and Senate floor procedures.
The right of extended debate is solely unique to the Senate. The filibuster allows a senator to block a bill that has not achieved its threshold of 60 votes, a near impossibility in the Senate. This allows the Senate to regulate the more majoritarian and formal House, killing bills. Even the threat of a filibuster is enough to end a bill’s journey in Congress. The House has nothing close to this, and every rep in the House must eventually end their debate.
Another significant difference is a Senator’s power of the non-germane amendment. Senator’s can take any dead bill in a committee, draft it as a nonrelevant floor amendment, and offer it as a different bill. Essentially unlike members of the House, a senator can bypass committees without anyone else’s consent. In the house, to bypass committees the house needs to arrive a 2/3rds vote. Discharge petition
(Oct 13). What is the “nuclear option?” How does it work, and how has it been used so far?
The nuclear option involves establishing new precedents by overturning rulings of the presiding officer. Because overturning rulings of the presiding officer require, only a simple majority vote, the majority party can evoke this without minority consent. By permitting majority cloture, the nuclear option “reshaped the strategic calculations of presidents and senators involved in the nomination and confirmation process. “
Examples: Reid used it to push through republican obstruction of Obama’s executive and judicial nominees’ nomination. Senate trump nominees. ( go into more detail)
Smith lists a series “of forces that may drive the frequency of filibusters and other obstructive tactics.” Briefly explain three of them. ????????????????????
Individualism- In the last half of the 20th century, stronger incentives for senators to appeal to organized interests and a national audience produced greater individualism, including individual efforts to obstruct Senate actions.
Party Strength- Each party’s strength, its size and cohesiveness—has varied widely. A strong majority party with little hope of forcing compromise and so the minority resorts to constructivism, but its ability to successfully obstructs depends on its own strength.
Times constraints- As the time for enacting the majority’s agenda became scarce, a product of the expanding federal government and congressional workload, obstruction and delay become more serious problems for the majority party, made minority obstruction more effect in killing bills/forcing compromise.
Congressional Calendar- Until mid-1930s, each congress had fixed sessions that expired, 20th amendment did away from this weakening filibuster.
Tracking-System of scheduling debate on filibustered bills to during limit hours of the day to allow other business to be confused which has made filibusters less painful to minority
Cloture Threshold- rule of 2/3rds (60 votes) to override a filibuster, weakening filibusters
Distribution of Policy Positions-On one hand Cloture offers a minority an opportunity to force negotiations on a bill or simply kill it. Sometimes minority chooses not to block bill with cloture. On the other side, minority will kill bill if it could not agree with cloture.
Competition for Majority Control- effect of electoral competition on senatorial behavior. Frequency of change in party control appears to have led senate parties to give more weight to gaining and retaining majority status in setting legislative strategies.
John M. Ryan concludes his article by suggesting that, “(r)emoving the supermajority requirement [to end Senate debate with cloture] would undoubtedly speed up action and allow parties to pass more legislation, but it would also promote more extreme legislation, perhaps worsening polarization.” Briefly explain his reasoning.
The minority’s preferences are incorporated into legislation, and the Senate’s institutional rules moderate bills to a significant degree. The Senate is expected to reduce majority-party power in the House on a subset of legislation because, while the House is a majoritarian institution, senate rules require that cloture be invoked before final passage, and the Senate majority party rarely has enough majority votes to override cloture. With the threat of the filibuster, the House purposely moderates the bills in advance to increase the chance of passage. Without the filibuster, the House will not have a need to moderate its bill causing an increase in more majoritarian and thereby more radical bills to pass. More extreme leg=worse polarization
Explain three sources of committee chairs’ power over what their committee does, and two examples of how that power may be (or actually has been) limited by competition from party leaders.
hire and fire committee staff, arrange hearings, maintain order and decorum in committee proceedings, recommend conferees, act as floor managers, allocate committee funds/rooms, develop legislative strategy, chair hearings/markups, spokesperson, devise rules, regulate internal affairs and organizing committees.
Chair can kill a bill simply by refusing to schedule it for a hearing.
The chair may convene meetings when proponents or opponents of the legislation are not present. This is due to the fact chairs call meetings and establish agendas.
Chairs also empower less senior members to take on special policy assignments, they delegate assignments.
Limited by competition from party leaders:
Streamlining of Multiple referrals: legislation falls in 1 or more committees jurisdiction it will be referred to multiple committees. Since 1995 they placed this practice firmly under the speaker’s control by letting the speaker identify the primary committee that will handle the bill
Bypassing committees allows for party leaders to bypass some or all of the committee process allowing them to vote on the bill directly on the floor. As a result speaker can intervene more in committees and set deadlines for committees involving referral legislation.
Seniority Change- Committee posts used to be based solely on seniority but that is long gone. Both party conference rules state that seniority does not have to be the sole factor in committee assignments including the chair. The party decides to chair. Chairs and ranking minority members starting in the 1970s were elected by secret ballot of their party colleagues. Now party loyalty and fundraising matter more. Face sanctions if they toe party line (chairs).
Bypassing Committees- party leaders can now use actions such as suspension of the rules to bypass committees and put legislation on the floor to without committee consideration.
The three-term limit for Committee chair Republicans
Speaker selects chair?
It is logical to say that each congressional committee operates within a
“policy environment,” and that how committee behavior differs is related to how those
environments differ. Summarize the major ways, according to the reading, that these
environmental factors influence committees. Note that I have changed the wording of
this question from the first study guide, so a good answer is somewhat easier to
identify.
Four Ways:
1. Shape the Content of Public policies and thus the likelihood that these policies will be accepted by the full House or Senate. The Judiciary committees are faced with diverse and competing interest groups thus the committee’s chances of coming to an agreement rely on their abilities to deflect such issues altogether or to accommodate said interest groups.
2. Policy environments foster mutual alliances among committees, federal departments, and pressure groups—the iron triangles. Veteran Affairs Committee advocates for legislation to benefit vets and is backed by the VA. (issue networks emerge)
3. Policy environments establish decision-making objectives and guidelines for committees. Clientele-oriented committees such as the small business committees, try to promote the policy views of their group (small businesses)
4. Influence the level of partisanship on committees. Some committees are relatively free of party infighting but other committees consider continuous issues that often divide the two parties. The Judiciary Committee has lots of ideological clashes.
Explain three ways that developments in the 1970s, 1980s, and/or 1990s
reduced the power of the chairs of full committees. NOTE: the Kornberg book’s claim
that “staff people were hired only by the chair, who was appointed by the Speaker,” is
an error. Appointment by the Speaker was only true of more procedural or
housekeeping committees. So don’t say that! Note also: this question is not all that
different from question 10; if I ask a version on the exam you might think of both
sources
1970 Legislative Authorization Act (LRA) empowered the minority allowing them to hire staff and call witnesses. Required committees to set regular meeting days, allowing for members to add items to the agenda. Also abolished many committees. Also, reduced Committee staff was reduced by a third, subcommittees were forbidden from hiring staff, staff people only hired by the chair, No longer had strong network of staff to help gather info/specialize. Centralization of staff hiring led to higher turning, less diversity, meaning less specialization,
Subcommittee Bill of Rights- gave subcommittee chairs right to hire staff and organize hearings (devolution of power within committees directly disempowered committee chairs)
Fall of the Seniority System- the system was undermined as party leadership gained influence. Chairs are not solely selected on seniority.
Speaker able to refer to more than one committee
Steering Committees- are established as instruments of the party leadership to decide on the chair and membership of each committee.
(Oct 30). Kornberg clearly thinks having expert staff is important. Briefly explain three ways that is useful.
Staff expertise influences the susceptibility of Congress to external medling. Staff neither have the time nor experience to draw on specialized issues resulting in them relyon on lobbyists, poorly informed staff rely on party leaders, lobbyists, or the executive branch than themselves leading to less independent committees. Staff Expertise Strengthens Comittees.
Staff expertise serves as ammunition against lobbyists.
Staff experience and expertise leds to more effective lawmaking as it allows chairs to take advantage of their positions and experienced staff serve as a force multiplier
Staff experience allows for a guard against companies using their influence to push legislation and influence the agenda.
). Kornberg creates a typology of witnesses. Identify and explain those types.
Labeled Expert- a type of expert recruited by staff because he or she is known for publicly embodying a certain view on an issue or for the zeal with which he or she conveys it. Staff members usually choose witnesses to represent a certain perspective. Usually originate from organizations where you already know their stance for instance if one comes from the Heritage Foundation you can already predict what they are going to state. Labeled experts usually originate from an organization and thus will represent the views of this group (Israeli ambassador testifying in Congress will represent/speak for Israel, Predictable)
Unlabeled Expert – Experts not associated with a specific ideology. They have not worked in previous political administrations or made significant donations to political campaigns. They are specialists sharing expertise, and are useful for staff members who want someone who is not associated with a group. Useful for more bi-partisan committees and committees where topics are difficult to label like an expert on terror.
Personal Storyteller- Include witnesses who come to share a personal story of how a policy has affected her. Seek out a witness to humanize a given issue, to break stereotypes of SNAP users etc. Trauma to raise awareness of an issue (like a victim of a terrorist attack)
Spokesperson- witness that comes to voice the perspective of a stakeholder group or cause. A spokesperson can speak on behalf of a lobby or association, such as one witness who spoke on behalf of the Internet Association at sex trafficking hearings. Spokespersons are ambassadors for companies without having to put a company name on it. Speak on behalf of a cause.
Kornberg reports that there are specific conditions that make it more likely
that members of Congress will learn from a hearing. Explain three of those conditions.
Partisanship: Bipartisan topics: educational hearings are more likely for bipartisan topics. Social psychology research shows that the degree of expert consensus influences the extent to which people are convinced by an argument. People are motivated by consensus cues and evidence is less threatening when it is presented as a consensus agreement on experts. The less contentious something is the more learning to be had.
Legislative Status: educational hearings are more likely in instances in which there is no imminent legislation because minds are not made up and because information/witnesses are more likely to be “new”.
Informal Hearings: Having a hearing off the record will prevent members from posturing and trying to grab attention. There is no time limitation, limit on questioning, and no rigid rules allowing for more questioning and a calmer environment.
Staff Education: Staff come to the hearings to learn and this in turn affects their work for their members. Much of what the staff do in person on hearings is prefigured by the options/information staffers apply. Without this or your staffers wanting to learn the member is also incentives to learn rather than to make headlines.
In Professor White’s view, Kornberg appears to be saying that both
nomination hearings (particularly for judicial nominations) and oversight hearings are
particularly unlikely to be “educational” or set up so legislators will learn, and particularly
likely to be theatrical. Briefly explain why, for each type.
Nomination Hearings- The publicity that contemporary nomination hearings garner and the partisanship they stir make them candidates for theatricality. Further hearings are now televised and congressional dynamics led to more hearings. Senators now ask questions for fundraising purposes or for social media for their own benefit. Nomination hearings do not have substantive questions. Judicial hearings only feature the nominees most of the time and not many witnesses. Minority wants to get across a message during the hearing. Further, nominations are handled solely by separate staff units decided mostly to nominations and the staff are very unfriendly to each other. (research more?)
Oversight Hearings- oversight of executive agencies. As executive branch/agencies grow congress has faced increased demand for oversight. Oversight hearings during periods of divided government may be predisposed toward theatrics. More oversight hearings if the opposing party is in the White House. Senators want to build a profile and oversight committees serve this purpose. Oversight hearings are also a show of force than an investigative action.
Kornberg writes that, “numerous scholars argue that it is partly loss of
personal relationships that are to blame for the decline of bipartisanship.” Explain three
of the examples she cites or points she makes about either why personal relationships
declined or how they still exist and are helpful.
Bipartisan committees- MC’s who serve on more bi-partisan committees are more likely to engage in bi-partisan behavior
Informal Hearings- hold potential to stimulate personal connections with witnesses. The nonpublished informal hearings allows mc’s to ask questions free of judgement. Ability for congressional officials to hear from everyday people instead of experts. Allows for geater representation of the general public in hearings. Personal connection between average voter and MC.
Structure of Senate: The long terms senators serve reinforce and build relationships among senators overtime. Partisanship over the years from a new senator eventually fizzles out due to years of interaction and experience. Further, its harder to pass majotorian legislation in the Senate resulting in more negotiations and personal connections.
Congress and Its Members reports that, “House and Senate floor votes do
not perfectly register members’ views.” By this they really mean that MCs may vote
against something that they think would be better than the status quo, or for something
that they think would be worse. Briefly explain three of the reasons that they give.
Members sometimes vote against a bill that they prefer to the status quo because they hope that a better bill on the matter might emerge later.
Members also may vote for a bill that they do not favor because they fear that if they fail to support it the result will be something far worse.
Members may also go along with legislation because on the whole they deem a bill a step forward even if they disagree with certain positions.
Members can also use “free votes” where their individual vote will not affect outcome. They delay their own vote until the outcome of the vote is assured
