Untitled

You will be able to describe the tensions between local representation and national lawmaking after you've read this chapter.

Scalia was the larger than life, outspoken justice who defined the conservative end of the Court, which often broke five-to-four on significant cultural and political issues.

If President Barack Obama replaced him with someone more in line with his values, the balance of the court would swing in his favor.

McConnell said that the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.

He said that the Senate wouldn't hold hearings or a vote on the president's nominee for the Court, but that they wouldn't refuse to confirm him.

There was a power struggle to decide the future of the Court and the battle over how to understand "advice and consent" was a proxy.

After considering various candidates, conducting interviews, and talking to advisors in the White House, Obama nominated a well-liked and respected judge.

According to the Republican narrative, presidents in their last year in office should not impose their choices on the people about to vote for their replacement, which meant the job of advising and giving consent meant ignoring the nomination entirely.

The Democrats said that the Senate was within its rights to deny Garland confirmation, but that "advice and consent" meant they had to give him a hearing.

Most of the American people were buying the Democratic version of the story, though that did not move McConnell, who risked alienating the Republican base if he went back on his decision.

McConnell wanted to keep the Senate majority in his party's hands, but Republicans in close races began to see their polls tighten, putting pressure on him.

Congress has the power to alter many of the rules that determine who wins and who loses in American political life, as well as the narratives that define the conflicts.

Social media has made it easier for representatives to reach out to their followers, communicate with them, inform them of actions taken in Congress, and solicit funds.

We might expect Americans to be proud of their national legislature, which has a long tradition of serving democratic government.

The first is that the behaviors that help a member of Congress keep his or her job don't always make the institution more popular.

On the other hand, voters want their representatives in Washington to take care of their local interests and to ensure that their home districts get a fair share of national resources.

On the other hand, citizens want Congress to take care of the nation's business, and to look like a mature, deliberative, and collegial body, a goal not necessarily furthered by individual legislators' efforts to keep their jobs.

The rules that determine how Congress works were designed to produce slow, careful lawmaking based on compromise that can often seem motionless to an impatient public.

Our legislators' struggle to keep their jobs while meeting national expectations and our own frustration with Congress' institutionalized slowness will take us a long way toward understanding our mixed feelings about our national legislature.

We look at who gets the results they want from Congress and how the rules of legislative politics help or hinder them in this chapter.

Representation and lawmaking have traditionally been performed by our elected representatives in the House and Senate.

In a mediated age, representatives might have to respond to people who are informed and passionate.

Legislators are expected to address the country's social and laws that serve the interest of the entire nation.

The tension between representation and lawmaking is complicated by the fact that members of Congress have to be responsive to all of their parties.

The loyalty to a party that helps shape how members see the world, how they define problems, and how they determine appropriate solutions has been an important part of how members of Congress identify and organize themselves.

They have juggled a commitment to the party with the need to represent voters and solve national problems, creating some kind of balance among the three.

Representation means working on behalf of one's constituency, the people back home in the district who voted for the member, as well as those who did not.

Political scientists talk about four types of representation in order to help us understand the job.

These are provisions in the budget that direct funding for specific purposes, for example, highway construction or the establishment of a research institution.

They are popular because they look free to the district and the costs are spread to all taxpayers.

There is a food tent for striking workers outside of Fairpoint Communications in Portland.

Congress splits their time between Washington, D.C. and their home districts, just as they have to divide their attention between national and local needs.

This representation includes things such as helping with immigration and naturalization problems, sending a flag to the U.S. Capitol, or finding out why a Social Security check hasn't shown up.

To promote their work, members maintain web pages and send information to the homes of voters through more traditional channels.

The member of Congress tries to represent many of the positive values Americans associate with public life and government without seeming too political.

Members are happy to speak at high school graduations or attend town meetings to explain what is happening in Washington.

These appearances are part of a member's " home style" and help to symbolize the message "I am one of you" and "I am a representation can be in person or virtual--communication around patriotic and regional messages is easy and inexpensive online."

If you want to know what your representatives are doing, how they voted on specific bills, or what your congressional district looks like, their official web sites are great starting points.

Most social media feeds are public relations pages managed by staffers, so you need to take them with a grain of salt.

It's a good idea to do an independent investigation, since your friend can help you find out what kind of record they have.

Members come home for long weekends to keep in touch with their friends and family.

Staff will be happy to reply to your phone call or email to let you know about upcoming town meetings or visits to district offices.

Most congressional social network feeds are carefully managed, but that doesn't mean you can't use them to your advantage.

A well-worded post tagged to your senator or representative can get their attention for an issue or cause that's important to you.

A number of well-run web sites run fact-checks to see if our representatives are stretching, bending, or breaking the truth.

Your local newspaper or news site will pay close attention to the activities of your congressional representatives, and may offer editorials that can help you decide how well they are serving your community.

If you want to know what your congressperson is up to, it's a good idea to see who has donated to their campaigns.

The site can show you who has given the most money to which political causes or candidates in your area.

Congress is expected to create laws that serve the common good.

A representative's calculation of how to vote on matters of national interest involves a number of factors.

He or she may be guided by conscience or ideology, by the demands of constituents, by interest groups, or by party position.

It can be difficult for members to fulfill their collective responsibility if these considerations are at odds with the representation just described.

Imagine a situation where a Democratic congresswoman representing an oil-rich district in Texas has to vote yes or no on government support for the development of non-fossil-fuel technologies.

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels so that we are less reliant on foreign sources of oil is not necessarily good for the economic interests of her district.

The bill would mean higher taxes for her people because of a technology that makes their industry less profitable.

Tough questions that affect the public good, her policy goals, and her reelection are what our congresswoman would have to consider in deciding how to vote.

We all want a Congress that focuses on the nation's problems, but as voters we tend to reward members for putting constituency concerns first.

A commitment to party that we call partisanship is complicating the already difficult balance between representation and lawmaking.

Party affiliations have always been an important part of the identities of members of Congress, but in recent years they have come to trump other considerations in what political scientists refer to as hyperpartisanship or the raising of party above all other commitments.

This hyperpartisanship is made worse by the fact that the issue positions and ideological stances of Democrats and Republicans have become more apart and each party has become more homogeneity.

The information bubbles we live in can make this worse by demonizing our opponents.

Voters tend to live nearer to those with whom they share values if they sort themselves into parties with greater internal ideological purity.

The people running for Congress don't have a lot of incentive to appeal to moderate voters.

If the hyperpartisan representative wants to keep his or her job and not face a primary election challenge from a candidate viewed by the party as more ideologically pure, he or she has to pick party over what'government to a crawl or even bring it to the brink of disaster.

The Republicans are more prone to internal purity tests and obstruction to get their way.

The recent Republican strategy of putting party first, not tolerate internal dissent, and refusing to compromise has ground American government to a halt.

Instead of following the legislative norm dictated by the procedural orientation that we discussed in Chapter 1 as a part of American political culture, the GOP took a more substantive stance.

After 16 days, the House Republicans agreed to a Senate bill, but only with a token concession of trivial legislative importance.

After his party scrambled to find someone to take on the job, former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan reluctantly took the office, but he did not have much better luck marshalling his troops.

In February 2016 Senate majority leaderMitch McConnell showed the same hyperpartisanship at work in the Senate, an institution that used to consider itself bipartisan, when he refused to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

It was a stunning break of a legislative norm to deny a president hearings on his choice to fill a Supreme Court seat in the hopes that a future election would bring a Republican president who would nominate someone more pleasing to Republicans.

It may seem reasonable to refuse to compromise with Democrats in order to hold out for what they want, for very committed, very conservative Republicans who fundamentally disagree with liberal goals and policies.

The Tea Party, the Club for Growth, and Americans for Tax Reform are some of the conservative organizations that are influential.

In each case the Democrats have a competing narrative about what is happening, but for the most part the contention confuses voters, causing them to blame all establishment politicians for not getting anything done.

Sometimes confusing voters with conflicting media reports is an effective strategy for getting them to tune out.

The end of bipartisanship in the institution she had served since 1995 led to the retirement of Republican senator Olympia Snowe.

Steve LaTourette, an Ohio Republican who had already won his primary and was almost certainly going to be reelected, decided to leave the House.

We must never adjust to the coarseness of our national dialogue with the tone set at the top.

There is something serious at stake for both citizens and their representatives when it comes to representation, lawmaking, and hyperpartisanship.

Many partisan activists who have contributed time and money have strong policy preferences.

The need to secure reelection by catering to local interests often means that their representatives have less incentive to focus on national lawmaking.

They have to face personal, party, and special interest demands that might not suit the voters back home.

Voters lose faith in their representative institutions when part of their job is being the creation and dissemination of a narrative that satisfies competing constituencies.

The Constitution gives the U.S. Congress enormous powers, despite the fact that they never anticipated the size of the federal government.

They include the powers to tax, to pay debts, to regulate interstate commerce, and to provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States.

The principle of checks and balances was strengthened when the founders wanted two chambers so that they could serve as a restraint on each other.

Although the two houses are equal in their power, there are some key differences, including the fact that tax bills must originate in the House and that both must pass every bill in identical form before it can be signed by the president.

The Senate and House need more rules and hierarchy in order to function efficiently.

Senators can suspend their preoccupation with the next campaign for the first four or five years of their terms and thus, at least in theory, have more time to spend on the affairs of the nation.

The authors of the original Constitution believed that the Senate was a special chamber that was removed from the people.

The Senate has to pass budget bills as well, and most of the time differences are negotiated between the two houses.

The budget process has gotten more complicated as a result of congressional struggles to deal with the deficit, which called for reductions in spending at the same time that interest groups were pleading for expensive new programs.

The power of impeachment of public figures such as presidents and Supreme Court justices is one of the differences between the House and Senate.

The Senate tries the official if they are charged with treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House, but the Senate did not find the president guilty.

Confirmation of appointments to the executive and judicial branches, as well as sharing the treaty-making power with the president, are all done by the Senate.

The Supreme Court has often extended legislative power through a broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution.

Our system of checks and balances requires each branch to have the cooperation of the others to exercise its powers.

If the president doesn't sign the bill or veto it, it won't become law, but if both houses of Congress can muster a two-thirds majority, it will.

The Republican House oversight of Russian intervention into the 2016 election was unable to get to the bottom of what the Russian role was because President Trump viewed their charge as implying that his election was illegitimate.

When the Democrats took back control of the House in the fall of 2018, they promised to look at the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, Trump's financial relationship with Russia, and his efforts to hamper the free press by targeting the business interests of the owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos The agencies can develop bad relationships with those they are supposed to be regulating if Congress doesn't watch.

The Minerals Management Service's failure to adequately police offshore drilling procedures contributed to the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's failure to protect us from risky investment practices that resulted in the economic meltdown in late 2008.

The National Environmental Policy Act was routinely violated by regulators seeking bonuses for encouraging offshore oil drilling.

Major presidential appointments, such as cabinet posts, ambassadorships, and the federal courts, must be approved by the Senate.

They often tie up appointments because they oppose the nominee on account of his or her ideology or because they want to extract promises and commitments from the president.

The ability of the Senate to block the appointments of presidents is incredibly frustrating, as it prevents agencies and courts from taking care of their business.

The purpose of the recess appointments was to allow presidents to fill vacancies in an era when the Senate might take a long time to convene.

President Obama argued that Congress was in recess when it made several appointments, some of which were challenged in court.

The difference in constituencies is a final built-in source of institutional conflict between Congress and the president.

If a clean air bill is passed, some members of Congress might have to close factories in their districts because it would not be profitable to bring them up to emissions standards, or shut down soft coal mines because the bill would kill the market for high-sulfur coal.

Within an era of hyperpartisanship, opposition members can get their bases excited just by opposing the president's agenda.

The Constitution gives both the House and the Senate great power, but it is done in a backhanded way known as checks and balances.

The legislature can't operate without the cooperation of the other two branches if it can demonstrate unusual internal strength and consensus.

If we want to understand how Congress works, we should start with the election of its members.

Democrats in 2000 proposed using a more precise statistical sampling technique that would allow census workers to get a better estimate of hard tocount portions of the population such as poor people and immigrants.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution and the legislation on the books required that the census reflect an actual count of the population.

The districts within the states have to be redrawn to keep them fairly equal in population.

Americans should be represented under the principle of "one person, one vote" and that the districts average size of a house district in the year 2010 was 710,767.which is carried out by the state legislators and can turn into a bitter political battle.

The process of drawing district lines to benefit one group or another can result in some extremely strange shapes by the time state politicians are through.

It is possible for a party to win a majority of seats in the legislature while losing the popular vote.

The Republican success in the 2010 elections gave the party control of the process in a majority of states.

Democrats tried to use their greater vote total as an indication that they had a popular mandate, but it was not enough to control the House.

Democrats needed a five percentage point win to take the House back because of the way the districts were drawn.

It looks like their margin of victory may be closer to 7 or 8 points which could support a majority of 35-40.

The Democrats gained control of the state legislative level, which will give them a say in how the districts are drawn after the 2020 census.

Democrats took seven governorships, flipped six legislative chambers, and added about 300 state-level House and Senate seats.

In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court redrew the map to equalize the seats between the party, since the previous Republican map had made it possible for the Democrats to carry about half of the statewide vote but win only five of the 18 seats.

This happens when legislators agree to create districts to improve the electoral security of the current members of both parties.

District lines can be drawn to favor or disadvantage an ethnic or racial group.

For a long time, states in the Deep South drew district lines to keep black voters out of Congress.

The drawing of district lines has been used to increase the likelihood that African Americans will be elected to Congress.

The formation of majority-minority districts is supported by both Republicans and minority political activists.

The courts struggle to find a "fair" set of rules for drawing district lines because politicians and racial and ethnic group leaders continue to jockey for the best district boundaries for their own interests.

Congress never updated the Voting Rights Act after the Court struck down part of it.

The Court ruled that Texas Republicans did not intentionally draw their districts to disadvantage minorities, and they let most of the map stand.

It's hard to imagine why anyone would want to be a part of that institution, let alone spend the money, resources, and public effort necessary to win, given the low esteem in which Congress is held by most Americans.

They are more likely to run for office from a sense of personal conviction and commitment to act in line with strongly held values.

After graduating from Harvard with a political science degree, Al Franken went on to make his name as a comic writer and performer on Saturday Night Live.

In his second term, accusations of sexual misconduct from earlier in his career arose and he resigned from the Senate.

The $174,000 salary for representatives and senators makes them one of the top wage earners in the nation, as well as generous travel allowances, free use of the U.S. mail, and free parking at Reagan National Airport.

The Honorable Soand-So's benefits, salary, power, and prestigious title are overshadowed by the fact that the job security is notexistent.

To keep their job, they have to work harder, raise more money, and be more popular than they were before.

Most members have to maintain two households, one in Washington and one at home, and many find it hard to manage on their congressional salaries.

The job is no longer fun for some because of the high level of conflict in Congress.

Nonincumbent candidates for Congress need political and financial assets to have a chance of winning.

Conservatives don't do well in conservative parts of the South, African Americans have a hard time getting elected in predominantly white districts, and Republicans have a hard time in areas that are mostly Democratic.

The edge in visibility, experience, organization, and fundraising ability possessed by the people who already hold the job is what determines whether an opponent is vulnerable.

Presidential popularity, the state of the economy, and military engagements abroad are some of the factors that lead to these tides.

In recent elections, enthusiasm for a popular presidential candidate can sweep fellow party members to victory.

There is no arguing with the fact that the presidential party loses seats in Congress in the off-year elections.

The presidential party lost seats in the House of Representatives in every election of the twentieth century except in 1934.

The Democrats lost the majority in the House in 2010 due to a sputtering economic recovery, high unemployment, and low approval ratings for President Obama.

The Democrats lost seats in the House and Senate in the same year, giving the coveted leadership spot to McConnell from Kentucky.

The Republicans were vulnerable to Democratic takeovers in the House because they didn't have a lot of exposure in the Senate.

An enormous gender gap sent women suburban voters to the Democratic side while men tended to vote Republican as people of color and young people not always reliable midterm voters turned out.

The House of Representatives was intended to reflect the opinions and interests of the American people.

The Senate was to be made up of older men of virtue, education, and property, who they believed would have the wisdom to balance the impulses of the House.

John Adams said a representative assembly should be a miniature portrait of the people at large.

In the days after the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the Congress was dominated by well-educated, well-to-do white males.

The practice of appointing a congressman's widow to office when the member died was once common, and women seemed to have done better than men.

The blue wave was limited by the fact that the Republican Senate did not defend many seats.

Democrats took the unusual step of fielding candidates in almost every district, no matter how remote their chances were, because Republican exposure was high.

The Democratic enthusiasm to take on President Trump gave them good candidates to take advantage of retirements, scandals, or luck, as the party often leaves a seat open if they don't win.

The new Congress will have the same Senate, controlled by McConnell, who wants to get Trump's list of judges approved, something he can do easily without the threat of a filibuster.

It's just a matter of whether the Trump administration can paralyze it by allowing low cost, high deductible plans that can charge a premium for pre-existing conditions because additional states voted for Medicaid expansion.

Immigration is one of the issues the Democrats want to move on from, but President Trump has made blocking immigrants and refugees a key part of his agenda, and Republicans are not likely to challenge his base unless his popularity ratings sink further.

The Bush administration's Iraq War was one of the things Speaker Pelosi wanted to investigate when she was in office.

How that will interact with Robert Muller's investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election isn't clear and there will undoubtedly be overlap as some Democrats are itching to get their hands on Trump's tax returns to see why he has refused to release them as previous presidents have done.

Women's political status has been reinforced by the growing salience of issues that are of particular concern to them, from abortion to family leave policy to sexual harassment.

The election rules in some countries, such as Sweden, require parties to run a certain number of women candidates.

Women are more likely to wait to be asked by a party leader or the community if they want to run for office than men are.

Winning a quarter of each chamber is an accomplishment, even if it doesn't seem like much for a majority of the population.

The Supreme Court has refused to approve racially based districting, making the future of this pattern hard to predict, but blacks have been more successful at winning seats in the House than they have at winning statewide elections to the Senate.

More than half of Americans are female, but women have historically been underrepresented in Congress.

Both parties have worked hard to get minorities to vote because of the rapid growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations in America.

The Obama campaign won the Hispanic and Asian American vote in the 2008 and 2012 elections by large margins, and the Democrats have been more successful recently.

Depending on how the issue of immigration plays out, temporary Democratic support could be sealed as one-party loyalty.

People with higher income and better education are more likely to vote and contribute to campaigns because they have the resources and skills to communicate their policy preferences to their representatives.

The lack of working people in Congress probably leads to some of their concerns being left off the congressional agenda, because economic inequality carries over to the policymaking process of who gets what.

Only 2 percent of those elected to Congress fit the definition of a "working class" because of their occupational status.

Having one of our own as an active participant in the policy process has positive symbolic meaning for women, Hispanics, and African Americans.

The results are mixed as to whether the presence of these groups in the legislative process produces better policies for them.

In terms of how they vote, members of these demographic groups tend to put issues of concern to the groups on the political agenda, but in terms of how they actually vote, the effect is not great.

It seems that the primary policy effect of descriptive representation is that it brings what might be otherwise neglected perspectives to the legislatures, raising minority-interest issues and anticipating the needs and concerns of fellow minorities when new issues arise.

Congressional elections are the meeting ground for citizens and their representatives, where each brings his or her own goals and stakes in the process.

Citizens want a congressperson who will take care of local affairs, mind the nation's business, and represent them on political and social issues.

The rules of local representation and electoral politics mean that citizens are more likely to get someone who takes care of local interests and affairs, and who sticks to a partisan line, at the expense of national interests and general representation.

Many members want to do what is best for the nation regardless of their district or state, but they have to return to their local concerns and supporters in order to be reelected.

The official business of Congress is making laws despite the imperatives of reelection and the demands of constituency service.

The rules of the institution that determine where the power is and who can exercise it is influenced a lot by the organization of Congress.

The section describes how Congress is organized and how it is influenced by members' goals.

The Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate, and the chairs of all the committees and subcommittees are all Democrats.

John Tester is a farmer and former music teacher who served on various local board and committees before moving on to national politics.

He wants to return to Montana and get his hands dirty on the farm his family has worked on for a century.

Early in his career, Tester got caught up in public service.

In a rural community, citizens are expected to serve on committees and boards.

"I can tell you that there is no doubt in my mind that folks vote in some cases 'yes' or 'no' just to be partisan," he said.

If we work hard and stick to our guns, the good Lord will open the door for us.

If you get involved, you'll make your community, your county, your state, and your country a better place, and the time I'm talking about is that you don't have to do it.

While the Democrats held a majority, President Obama was able to get his priorities enacted by the House of Representatives, but solid Republican opposition to anything he favored was enough to block his policy initiatives after the election.

The leaders of Congress are chosen by the majority and minority parties in each house.

The current era has a strong centralized leadership that allows Congress to be more efficient, but it gives less independence to members to take care of their own constituencies or to pursue their own policy preferences.

The person who presides over floor deliberations is the most powerful member of the House.

The presiding officer in the House has less power than in the Senate because of the freer rules for deliberation on the floor.

Whips are elected by party members and find out how people will vote so that the leaders can adjust the legislation, negotiate acceptable amendments, or use threats to line up support.

Speaker Joe Cannon's "boss rule" centralized power in the House at the beginning of the twentieth century.

In 1910, members revolted and moved to the committee chairs with great power.

Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, will replace Gingrich as the Republican congressional spokesman and leader after Gingrich resigned in the wake of the almost unprecedented reversal of the 1998 midterm loss.

Pelosi's role in passing Obama's health care reform bill was crucial, and she was effective at maintaining the support and discipline of her Democratic majority in the House, holding on to her leadership position in the party even after the early assessment by a congressional watcher is that she was.

Although she has acknowledged the need for younger leadership, there is little doubt she will lead the Democrats for another term in office.

As Senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson was known for his ability to convince others to see things his way.

The six foot, four inch tall Johnson makes a pointor two, towering over colleagues while invading their personalspace.

His leadership skills were challenged by the effort of holding together a diverse caucus, divided between traditional Republicans and the newly elected Tea Partiers who came to Congress determined not to compromise in achieving their ambitious agenda.

Paul Ryan replaced him reluctantly, knowing that the caucus would be hard to lead, and he resigned in 2015.

A bill may be pulled from consideration by the majority leader when defeat would make them look bad.

The biggest legislative victories of Obama's first year as president were shepherded by Harry Reid, who was replaced by the current majority leader,Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

His determination to block as many of Obama's policies as possible, his prevention of the hearings on Merrick Garland, his refusal to get behind a bipartisan warning that our electoral system was under attack by Russia, and his breaking of norm on procedure were accomplished with very little dissention from his party McConnell has kept an eye on the prize of holding power despite the unruliness of the party.

Meeting as full bodies, it would be impossible for the House and the Senate to consider and deliberate on all of the 10,000 bills and 100,000 nominations they receive every two years.

The committee system has been developed to meet the needs of a growing nation as well as the evolving goals of members of Congress.

After they made their recommendations to the full body, congressional committees dispersed.

Longer service on a committee allowed members to develop expertise in a particular policy area and thus bills could be considered more efficiently.

The primary position from which they can influence national policy is provided by committees.

Through hearings, staff reports, and investigations, members discover who will support different policy options.

In considering, drafting, and redrafting proposed legislation, committees act as the eyes, ears, and workhorses of Congress.

The discussion of the Government Accountability Office, later in this chapter, shows how committee members gather information about agencies.

Changes to the laws that give agencies their power and operating funds reflect what is learned in oversight.

Oversight takes a lot of time, and the rewards to individual members are less certain than from other activities.

The form of oversight most often takes the form of "fire-alarm" oversight, in which some scandal or upsurge in public interest directs congressional attention to a problem in the bureaucracy, rather than careful and systematic reviews of agencies' implementation of congressional policies.

The permanent committees are created by statute and carry over from one session to the next.

They scrutinize, hold hearings on, amend, and kill legislation before the full Congress gets a chance to discuss it.

The Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The standing committees of the 115th Congress deal with issues in specific policy areas, such as agriculture, foreign relations, or justice, and they vary dramatically in size.

Each committee has several subcommittees that focus on specific areas of policy.

The chairs wield considerable power and are coveted positions and the standing committee membership is relatively stable.

Without the organization and structure provided by the Rules Committee, debate would quickly become chaotic.

The Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparedness for and Response to Hurricane Katrina was used to gather on Homeland Security after the September 11 terror attacks.

The House of Representatives voted in May of last year to establish a select committee to investigate the attack on the diplomatic mission in Libya.

Some areas of the house have coordinated activities to speed up the consideration of legislation.

As Congress has tried to work within severe budget restrictions and across the divide of increased party polarization, it has taken to passing huge "megabills" that collect many proposals into one.

This has given rise to a relatively new process of "omnibus" legislation in which the committees play a less central role and congressional leadership is much more involved, even at early stages.

The four most powerful Senate committees are Appropriations, Armed Services, Finance, and Foreign Relations.

The committee chairs of Congress were in charge of congressional power for most of the twentieth century.

Seniority is important, but chairs serve at the pleasure of their caucuses and the party leadership.

The congressional bureaucracy has grown due to the need for independent, expert information and the reelection imperative.

The committees' staffs do a lot of the committee work, from honing ideas, suggesting policy options to members, scheduling hearings, and recruiting witnesses to actually drafting legislation.

Congress has built its own research organizations and agencies in order to facilitate its work since Vietnam and Watergate.

The GAO audits the books of executive departments and conducts policy evaluation and analysis to help Congress determine the nature of policy problems, possible solutions, and what government agencies are doing to solve the problems.

Congress' economic adviser is the CBO, which provides members with estimates about the budget, the deficit or surplus, and the national debt, as well as forecasts of how they will be influenced by different tax and spending policies.

The CBO's regularly updated estimates on the costs of various versions of theAffordable Care Act were a central element in congressional considerations of the bill.

Congress has a more independent role in the policy process when it isn't dependent on the executive branch for information and expertise.

They are dependent on their leaders and their parties for the committee assignments that enhance their job performance and help them gain expertise in areas they care about.

In the House, where party control is stronger, the individual member of Congress is isolated and powerless.

The problems that are important to citizens at any given time include the economy, foreign affairs, national security, and the plight of the homeless.

The way Congress carries out its business is influenced by its internal institutional environment.

The policy process is difficult because the two houses operate under different decision-making procedures.

As you read the next section on how a bill becomes a law, notice how legislation is broken into bits, each considered individually in committees.

It's difficult to coordinate what one bill does with the laws already on the books or what another committee might be doing in a closely related area.

The process makes it hard for national policymakers to take a large-scale, coordinated approach to policy problems.

In this book, we have talked about the importance of informal rules that establish accepted ways of doing things.

In the current era of intense partisan conflict, the norms of collegial deference are even more important.

Ted Cruz became one of the most disliked men in Washington because of his inciting House members to rebel against their leadership on the issue of the government shutdown.

Ted Cruz spoke at a news conference with congressional Republicans who demanded the defunding of theAffordable Care Act in order to prevent a government shutdown.

The legislative process and steps a bill goes through to become law are two aspects of congressional policy that we consider.

Only a small number of proposed policies actually make it into law, and those that do have a difficult path to follow.

There is no official list of actions that Congress needs to take, but when a bill is proposed that would result in a significant change in policy, it must seem like a reasonable thing for members to turn their attention to.

New presidents are more effective at setting the congressional agenda because public attention is focused on presidential elections and campaigns.

Presidents use their yearly State of the Union addresses to outline the legislative agenda they would like Congress to pursue.

This doesn't guarantee presidential success, but it means presidents can usually get Congress to pay attention to their major policy proposals.

Efforts to fulfill campaign promises, to pay political debts, to realize ideological commitments, or to deal with a crisis are some of the proposals.

A second way an issue gets on the legislative agenda is when it is triggered by a well- publicized event, such as one that dominates cable news or our social media feeds, even if the problem it highlights is not a new one at all.

The explosion and release of millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico drew the nation's attention to energy policy, the adequacy of regulatory procedures, and the need to protect the environment.

Many members of Congress want to prove their legislative skills to their friends and supporters.

The introduction is done by putting the bill in a wooden box in the House and giving it to the presiding officer in the Senate.

The Speaker exercises a good deal of power when a bill falls under more than one committee's jurisdiction.

The Speaker has important leverage in the House because he or she knows which committees will be more or less favorable to certain bills.

Senators have more opportunity to make changes later in the process than representatives do, so they don't worry as much about where bills are referred.

Even if the bill's life is brief, the member who introduced it can still campaign as its champion.

The member wants to be seen back home as taking some action on the issue, not that the bill has a chance of passing.

Under an "open rule," bills can be amended if they are germane to the legislation under consideration.

For important bills, the House leadership gains more control by imposing rules that limit the time for debate and restrict the amendments that can be offered.

If the leadership knows that there is a lot of sentiment in favor of action on a tax cut, it can control the form of the tax cut by having a restrictive rule that prohibits any amendments to the committee's bill.

In the classic 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a naive man appointed to fill a vacant Senate seat takes to the Senate floor in a long, exhausting filibuster to defend himself against false charges and stop a bill's passage.

Mr. Smith's use of thefilibuster is a far cry from today's reality, where the mere threat of a filibuster has become a blunt partisan weapon.

The Senate's tradition of "unlimited debate" means that a member can talk indefinitely.

A vote to cut off debate and end a filibuster requires an extraordinary three-fifths majority.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed despite attempts by southern senators to derail it.

When the Republicans lost their majority in the Senate in 2008, then-Senate minority leaderMitch McConnell spelled it out, "I think we can stipulate once again for the umpteenth time that matters that have any level of controversy about it in the Senate will require 60 votes."

If the majority leader couldn't summon sixty votes, the bill or the nomination would be dead.

Republicans used the filibuster to block votes on presidential appointments to the bureaucracy, on his judicial nominees, as well as on policies such as an extension of unemployment benefits, immigration, and gun regulation.

Many of the president's judicial appointees were unable to get a vote a year after he won the election.

The heads of federal agencies were left unconfirmed because the Republicans disapproved of their missions and the Democrats were frustrated.

After months of being lobbied by members of his party, then- Senate majority leader Harry Reid was ready to use the nuclear option.

A simple majority would suffice for appointments to head up the federal bureaucracy or to fill vacancies on the lower courts.

The use of the filibuster and cloture motions has become routine in the U.S. Senate, and now that the nuclear option has been used, we can expect to see an increase in its use.

Because the legislative process allows so many interests to weigh in, the bills that emerge frequently can't get majority support because members anticipate a presidential veto, or because of partisan differences.

As a result, more power has been concentrated in the party leadership, the White House is more involved than in the past, and the traditional power of standing committees has waned as they are more frequently bypassed or overridden as the leadership moves legislation along.

The overly large bills that result go unread by some members and are criticized by outsiders as an abuse of the legislative process.

A variety of influences affect the senator or member of Congress as they make a decision on how to vote.

Busy representatives often listen to other members who they respect and generally agree with.

Interest groups have an effect on how a member of Congress votes, but studies suggest that their impact is less than we think.

The congressperson or senator who is committed to passing or defeating a particular bill cannot do so alone, and he or she looks to find likeminded members for political support.

Many of the methods used to influence the fate of a bill are effective long before the floor vote takes place.

The veto is a negative tool because the president can usually count on the support of at least one-third of one of the houses.

They can bundle policies together so that the bill that arrives on the president's desk contains elements that he or she would typically want to veto.

If Congress remains in session, a bill will become law in ten days if the president doesn't do anything.

The number of factors that have to fall into place for a bill to become law is striking.

In regards to procedures, Congress is better set up to ensure that bills do not affect organized interests than it is to facilitate coherent, well-coordinated solutions to the nation's problems.

All American political actors, those in Washington and those outside, have something important at stake in the legislative process.

Presidents have a huge stake in what Congress does, in terms of fulfilling their own campaign promises, supporting their party's policy goals, and building a political legacy.

Presidents can influence the legislative agenda, try to persuade their fellow party members in Congress to support their policies, take their case to the people, or use several different veto techniques once the process is under way.

Members want to satisfy their own needs, build national reputations, and accomplish ideological and partisan goals.

It involves personality, luck, timing, and context, as well as political skill in using the rules that make a successful legislator.

If a party's reputation is that of excessively partisan and obstructionist, it could cause voter backlash.

Legislative politics has a balance of rules and processes that favor the skilled politician.

Academics and journalists spend a lot of time speculating about what the decline in public support for our political institutions means for American democracy.

The intense partisanship of the Congress and its repeated legislative crises as the parties are unable to compromise is a major contributor to our generally low regard for it.

Some candidates encourage a negative image of the institution they want to join--running for Congress by running against it, and declaring their intention to fight against special interests, bureaucrats, and the general incompetence of Washington.

In the wake of the Watergate scandal, media coverage of Congress has become more negative, more continuous, and harder to avoid.

Since the 1970s the law requires that information about how much campaigns cost and who contributes to them be made public, casting a shadow of suspicion on the entire process and raising the concern that congressional influence can be bought.

Most of the reforms currently on the agenda are not likely to change the minds of Americans who are unhappy with Congress.

The intent is to limit the number of terms a member of Congress can serve to between eight and twelve years.

The reform is unlikely to bring about a "cleaner" institution because there is no evidence that Congress corrupts good people.

The need to compromise on details might be reduced with the help of institutional reforms.

Congress has a harder time getting things done when it reflects a sharply divided society.

It can't act because it's a representative institution and members aren't always present in their districts.

Congress has more incentives to be a representative institution than a national lawmaking body.

The founders' mixed bag of incentives works so well that Congress doesn't move very much.

Bipartisan cooperation is seen as a weakness by party activists and outside groups because of the coarse rhetoric.

It is our inefficiency, our stubbornness, and our need to compromise that preserve the freedoms Americans hold dear.

Congress has conflicting goals of working together to solve national problems and operating as members of opposing partisan teams.

The practice of congressional politics is fascinating to many close-up observers but looks rather ugly as we average citizens understand it, based on the nightly headlines and our social media feeds.

The view of Congress stems from the difficulties inherent in the conflicting incentives of the job as well as the failures of the people we send to Washington.

The constitutional requirement that the Senate give the president advice and consent to major appointments had become almost akin to a hostage situation by the middle of 2016 was the reason why we opened this chapter.

Hillary Clinton called on the Senate to take action on Garland's nomination despite the fact that President Obama continued to campaign for him.

McConnell played out a scenario in which the stakes were high in a politically sophisticated game of risk.

If Justice Scalia's replacement were to be nominated by a Democrat, the Republicans would lose their majority in the court.

The base put enormous pressure on McConnell not to hold hearings, and he couldn't afford to give in before the election.

Democrats wanted Garland's nomination confirmed because it would help ensure the continuity of the president's legacy without knowing the outcome of the election.

As it looked more and more likely that Hillary Clinton would become president, Progressives decided to wait and see if they would get a far more liberal justice.

Republicans were scrambling to minimize the damage from a Clinton victory and a Senate loss.

Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona, who had opposed Donald Trump's nomination as president, said he was encouraging his Senate colleagues to go ahead and confirm Merrick Garland.

The stakes of future appointments under divided government are very high because the Senate lost an important norm of cooperation with the executive branch.

When Justice Anthony Kennedy decided to retire in the fall of 2018, the lack of bipartisanship and cooperation that John McCain values so much in the following Critical Thinking were again apparent.

The hearings seemed to be going well until Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with accusations that she had been attacked by him in high school.

Her testimony before Congress was moving and credible--even President Trump said he found it so--but a well-coached Kavanaugh came out swinging, defending his name and essentially calling her a liar.

Republican Senator Jeff Flake, on the verge of retirement, said he would not vote for confirmation until an investigation had been completed.

The White House-controlled investigation proved to be a farce, but the Republicans were satisfied and confirmed the man.

Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by a law professor when she worked for him.

The stakes for advice and consent were defined by partisan politics in both cases.

I have a refreshed appreciation for the protocols and customs of this body, and for the other ninety-nine privileged souls who have been elected to this Senate.

I am so grateful to the people of Arizona for the honor of serving here and the opportunities it gives me to play a small role in the history of the country I love.

I've known and admired men and women in the Senate who were giants of American politics.

They knew they had an obligation to work together to make sure the Senate discharged its responsibilities effectively.

Our arcane rules and customs are intended to require broad cooperation.

The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to makeIncremental progress on solving America's problems and to defend her from her adversaries.

When I hear that the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body, I think of the principled mindset and service of our predecessors.

Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticize but also accept, just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn't exciting or glamorous.

It's usually the most we can expect from our system of government, which operates in a country as diverse and free as ours.

Considering the injustice and cruelties inflicted by autocratic governments, and how corruptible human nature can be, the problem solving our system does make possible, the fitful progress it produces, and the liberty and justice it preserves, is a magnificent achievement.

Our individual efforts have helped make our society the most powerful and prosperous in the world.

I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other to learn how to trust each other again, and on doing better serve the people who elected us.

We keep trying to win without help from across the aisle because we've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues.

Republicans have been looking for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price.

I voted for the motion to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered.

My state's governor has urged changes that will need to be included in a final bill to get my support.

We've tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then springing it on skeptical members, asking them to swallow their doubts and force it past a unified opposition.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats should not have forced through a social and economic change without opposition.

Let's return to regular order if this process ends in failure.

The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee under Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray should hold hearings and try to report a bill with contributions from both sides.

If we can pass something that will be imperfect, full of compromises, and not very pleasing to implacable partisans on either side, that might provide workable solutions to problems Americans are struggling with today.

There's satisfaction in respecting our differences, but not letting them prevent agreements that don't require abandonment of core principles, agreements made in good faith that help improve lives and protect the American people.

The times when I was involved in a modest way with working out a bipartisan response to a national problem or threat are the proudest moments of my career.

The Senate was thought to be more deliberative and careful than the other body because of the public passions of the hour.

Our consent is needed for the President to appoint jurists and powerful government officials.

We play a vital role in shaping and directing the judiciary, the military, and the cabinet in planning and supporting foreign and domestic policies.

America has made a greater contribution to the international order that has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than any other nation.

I'll be here for a few days and hope to manage the floor debate on the defense authorization bill, which I'm proud to say is a product of bipartisan cooperation and trust among the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

McCain is motivated by what he sees as overly partisan behavior to call for a return to compromise and regular order.

Politicians would give up on hyperpartisanship and value the reputation of the Senate more than their own egos if McCain had his way.

Since the legislative process is meant to be very slow, representatives have less incentive to focus on national lawmaking when reelection interests are more important.

Congress is very powerful, but must show unusual strength in order to amend the Constitution.

The incumbency effect is powerful in American politics because those in office often create legislation that makes it difficult for challengers to succeed.

The structure of our bicameral legislature and organization of each house can slow the legislative process, but Congress has a wealth of tools and strategies for creating policy.

Legislative politics has a balance of rules and processes that favor the skilled politician.

Citizens, interest groups, the president, and members of Congress all have a stake in the legislative process.

The impact on legislative outcomes may be different for voters organized into interest groups.

The political cartoon mocks Senator McConnell's refusal to vote on President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court after Antonin Scalia's death.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress's approval rating spiked to over 75 percent.

Since the 19th century, the number of women and African Americans in the House of Representatives has increased.

African American, Latino, and female senators all increased in number during the 19 sixties.

Democrats and Republicans both support same-sex marriage and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Gun control, state educational reforms, federal spending, and higher taxes are favored by most Democrats and few Republicans.

The majority of Republicans and a small percentage of Democrats are in favor of the building of the tar sands project.

Most Republicans and about 15 percent of Democrats favor requiring illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship.

40 percent of Republicans and very few Democrats support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.

The House and Senate Democrats have maintained a moderate level of liberalism since the 19 sixties.

The government takes advantage of the fact that most people don't have time to follow politics.