This booklet has involved a wide range of services, such as written reports on issues and the legislative process, consultations with Members and their staff, seminars on policy and procedural matters, and congressional testimony.
1. 113TH CONGRESS S. PRT. " COMMITTEE PRINT ! 2d Session 113–30 THE EVOLVING CONGRESS COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE DECEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS congress.#13 VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
2. THE EVOLVING CONGRESS VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
3. 1 113TH CONGRESS S. PRT. " COMMITTEE PRINT ! 2d Session 113–30 THE EVOLVING CONGRESS COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE DECEMBER 2014 PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 89–394 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 congress.#13 VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
4. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
5. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, DC, November 12, 2014. Hon. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to submit the study entitled ‘‘The Evolving Congress,’’ which was prepared by the Congressional Research Service. This compendium of 22 reports was written by staff of the Gov- ernment and Finance Division during the CRS centennial year. It is a fitting contribution by the Service whose mission is not only to analyze the domestic and international issues that impact the legislative agenda but also to advise on the future organization and operations of Congress and the institution’s policymaking process. The goal of this project is to inform the legislative debate moving forward by examining how and why Congress evolved over the pre- vious decades to where it is today. In addition to the analysts and information professionals who prepared the various pieces that make up ‘‘The Evolving Congress,’’ the project was coordinated and reviewed by Government and Fi- nance Division staff, including Pamela Jackson, Walter J. Oleszek, John Haskell, Michael L. Koempel, Matthew E. Glassman, James Saturno, and Robert Jay Dilger. I trust the committee will find the study thought provoking and valuable as you consider issues of congressional operations. It should also serve the wider audience of congressional scholars and all those interested in the history and processes of the First Branch. Sincerely, Dr. MARY MAZANEC, Director. (iii) VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
6. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
7. PREFACE For 100 years, the Congressional Research Service has been charged with providing nonpartisan and authoritative research and analysis to inform the legislative debate in Congress. This has in- volved a wide range of services, such as written reports on issues and the legislative process, consultations with Members and their staff, seminars on policy and procedural matters, and congressional testimony. In recent years, CRS has expanded its service by pro- viding a wider range of electronic products and enhancing its Web site to facilitate ease of Member and staff use. For this congressional committee print, the Government and Fi- nance Division at CRS took a step back from its intensive day-to- day service to Congress to analyze important trends in the evo- lution of the institution—its organization and policymaking proc- ess—over the last many decades. Changes in the political land- scape, technology, and representational norms have required Con- gress to evolve as the Nation’s most democratic national institution of governance. The essays in this print demonstrate that Congress has been a flexible institution that has changed markedly in recent years in response to the social and political environment. In assessing Congress, it is also important to be mindful of what has not changed. For one thing, the institution has always been subject to criticism, as described by Walter Oleszek in one of the two overview pieces in Part I of this committee print, ‘‘The Evolv- ing Congress: Overview and Analysis of the Modern Era.’’ Often the criticism centers around so-called ‘‘gridlock’’ on major issues. But it bears mentioning that the constitutional design, another constant, militates against speed and efficiency and in favor of de- liberation. That Congress is not moving fast enough on certain issues to sat- isfy certain observers overlooks the fact that, historically, major legislation has almost always taken time to enact. Civil rights and Medicare both required debate and deliberation stretching over multiple Congresses before enactment. Today, the big policy de- bates are every bit as complex as those were, and in some respects may be more so given rapidly evolving technologies and the inter- national dimension of so many issues. Cybersecurity, environment challenges, fiscal pressures from entitlements, and immigration re- form, to name a few, present daunting challenges to lawmakers in the coming years. Partisanship is also a constant. Indeed the current level of par- tisanship that is often decried—characterized by the relative ideo- logical homogeneity within the two parties along with the ideolog- ical distance between them—is by no means unprecedented. It is also true that contemporary polarization is a reflection of a prin- (v) VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
8. vi cipled struggle over the proper role of the Federal Government. A serious debate is taking place in Congress that reflects disagree- ment and unease throughout the country, and there is nothing ‘‘wrong’’ or ‘‘broken’’ about that debate. However, this era of strong partisanship is likely no more perma- nent than others in the past. New issues and new movements in- evitably disrupt the status quo in the country, the Congress, and the party system. Witness the impact of the rise of the Progressives early in the 20th century, changes in the composition of both par- ties as a result of the civil rights movement, and controversial Su- preme Court decisions in the 1960s, 1970s, and beyond, as well as the effect of the tax revolt in the late 1970s. After Walter Oleszek’s piece, Michael Koempel looks broadly at how the job of a Member has evolved in the last half century. He addresses the dramatic changes in the information environment, resulting in increased demands from constituents; the social changes that have profoundly affected the context of representa- tion; and the way the campaign environment—increased costs and fundraising pressures—has evolved. These changes, together with the evolution of the party coalitions and the environment of par- tisanship described by Oleszek, have led to a different context for the consideration of legislation. Koempel describes how the roles of party leaders and committees in both Chambers have evolved; even the way legislation is handled on the floors of the two Chambers is different in important ways now than it was 30, 40, or 50 years ago. The message: the life of Members, with respect to both their legislative and representational roles, has changed in irrevocable ways since the 1960s and 1970s. Part II of the print, ‘‘The Members of Congress,’’ building on Oleszek’s and Koempel’s contributions, includes several reports de- scribing specific aspects of the life of a Member of Congress. Mat- thew Glassman considers how social media may affect Members in the performance of their representative role. Mark Oleszek takes a different tack in assessing the life of a Member, by investigating the nature of relationships in the Senate over the last 30 years. He finds that collaborative relationships are central to lawmaking but that opportunities to work together have decreased in recent years. Jennifer Williams, Ida Brudnick, and Jennifer Manning examine the changing demographics of the congressional membership, a membership that is much more diverse than previously, but which still is not representative of the Nation in significant ways. Brudnick separately details how congressional staffing has evolved over time, with implications for how Members do their work. Kevin Coleman and Sam Garrett write about the changing envi- ronment in congressional election campaigns in recent decades. They note in detail the differences in the campaign context 50 years ago or so and now, but ultimately conclude that the fun- damentals of campaigns are the same—candidates still need to identify, communicate with, and motivate potential voters. New technologies and other innovations in electioneering are merely means to the same end. Jessica Gerrity analyzes the public’s view of Congress over the last 40 years. She concludes that Congress’ consistently low popu- larity is, in part, due to factors beyond its control, but at the same VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
9. vii time may have systemic consequences. At the end of this group of reports, Jacob Straus wades into the question of measuring the productivity of one Congress against another. His contribution is that glib representations of a given Congress’ productivity, or lack thereof, not only ignore methodological complexities, but also gen- erally fail to consider that any such judgments are inherently value-laden. Part III, ‘‘The Institutional Congress,’’ looks in detail at develop- ments in the legislative process. The Constitution is nearly silent on how Congress needs to go about its legislative and oversight re- sponsibilities. Like the life of a Member, the legislative process itself has evolved in significant ways. Even what is thought of as ‘‘regular order’’ is far from static when viewed through a historical lens. Megan Lynch and Mark Oleszek consider developments in the use of special rules in the House. Authorizing legislation is, of course, the legal foundation for the actions of executive branch agencies. Jessica Tollestrup details notable changes in the struc- ture, content, and frequency of authorizations in the last few dec- ades. In recent years in particular, Congress has attempted to embed transparency in agency operations, as described by Clinton Brass and Wendy Ginsberg. This topic is likely an area of contin- ued reexamination for Congress going forward. An important question that faces Congress on a regular basis is how to organize for legislative business. The action in this area re- volves around the relative roles of party leadership and committees in the development and processing of legislation. Judy Schneider delves into the implications for Members and the policymaking process of the increased control that party leaders exert over some aspects of the process. Part IV, ‘‘Policymaking Case Studies,’’ aims to shed light on the various ways policy is made in the current Congress, and how that has evolved. In different ways, these case studies of congressional policymaking show that the institution is fully capable in different ways of addressing the competing demands of a diverse nation. For example, Edward Murphy and Eric Weiss describe Congress’ response to financial crises. In 2008, for example, we see that Con- gress’ hands are neither tied nor forced by policies and institutions put in place by previous Congresses; in fact, Congress proves able to pass far-reaching legislation even in an era of supposed legisla- tive gridlock. Similarly, post-9/11, Congress acted forcefully in var- ious ways, including by creating the Department of Homeland Se- curity. William Painter describes the creation of the new depart- ment and what, in retrospect, that experience tells us. In another report, Colleen Shogan studies the passage of the de- fense authorization bill. How does this massive undertaking hap- pen on an annual basis when many other reauthorization efforts stall out? Robert Dilger and Sean Lowry consider the case of small business policy, where creative approaches to the legislative proc- ess have at times yielded public law. Jennifer Williams describes a particular case involving congressional actions to direct Census Bureau policy through appropriations legislation. This reflects a trend of congressional direction coming through appropriations bills instead of authorizations. Other reports cover Congress’ evolving VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
10. viii role in responding to disasters (Bruce Lindsay and Francis McCar- thy), and the evolution of block grants as a policy instrument (Eu- gene Boyd and Natalie Keegan). Two reports look at tax policy—Molly Sherlock discusses rule- driven policy in the case of so-called ‘‘tax extenders,’’ and Jane Gravelle reminds readers that comprehensive tax reform is not something that happens easily. In fact, her historical analysis re- veals that there are identifiable preconditions for tax reform that, by and large, are not currently in place. The idea commonly put forward that Congress is ‘‘overdue’’ to enact comprehensive reform ignores not just history, but also the nature of the particular tax issues facing lawmakers today. As noted earlier, Congress faces major challenges going forward in a complex and interdependent world. Its decisions, given its cen- tral role in the policymaking process, will profoundly affect the fu- ture of the Nation. With this committee print, CRS is fulfilling its traditional role of informing Congress on the domestic and inter- national challenges that lie ahead, as well as assessing the future character of the institution and its policymaking process. The CRS goal is to enrich this debate by examining how and why Congress evolved to where it is today. This committee print could not have happened without the ef- forts behind the scenes of Pamela Jackson, Walter J. Oleszek, Mi- chael L. Koempel, Matthew E. Glassman, James Saturno, and Rob- ert Jay Dilger, as well as two former CRS staffers, Jessica C. Gerrity and Kevin Kosar. Karen Wirt and Tamera Wells-Lee, along with Suzanne Kayne of the Government Printing Office, worked long hours to enable the print to come together. In addition, Amber Wilhelm, assisted by Jamie Hutchinson, brought order to the pro- duction of graphics, and numerous editors polished the final prod- ucts. Of course, as always, the real work of fulfilling the CRS mis- sion to inform Congress was performed by the analysts and special- ists who wrote the products whose contributions are described above. JOHN HASKELL, Assistant Director, Government and Finance Division. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
11. CONTENTS Page Letter of Submittal .................................................................................................. iii Preface, by John Haskell ......................................................................................... v I. Overview The Evolving Congress: Overview and Analysis of the Modern Era, by Walter J. Oleszek .......................................................................................... 3 Being a Member of Congress: Some Notable Changes During the Last Half Century, by Michael L. Koempel ......................................................... 61 II. The Members of Congress Tweet Your Congressman: The Rise of Electronic Communications in Congress, by Matthew E. Glassman ............................................................ 95 Collaborative Relationships and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate: A Per- spective Drawn from Firsthand Accounts, by Mark J. Oleszek ................ 107 The 113th Congress and the U.S. Population: Discussion and Analysis of Selected Characteristics, by Jennifer D. Williams, Ida A. Brudnick, and Jennifer E. Manning ............................................................................. 129 Congressional Staffing: The Continuity of Change and Reform, by Ida A. Brudnick ................................................................................................... 145 The Unchanging Nature of Congressional Elections, by Kevin J. Coleman and R. Sam Garrett ...................................................................................... 163 Understanding Congressional Approval: Public Opinion from 1974 to 2014, by Jessica C. Gerrity .......................................................................... 189 Comparing Modern Congresses: Can Productivity Be Measured?, by Jacob R. Straus ........................................................................................................ 217 III. The Institutional Congress Recent Innovations in Special Rules in the House of Representatives, by Megan S. Lynch and Mark J. Oleszek ................................................... 245 Changes in the Purposes and Frequency of Authorizations of Appropria- tions, by Jessica Tollestrup .......................................................................... 259 Congress Evolving in the Face of Complexity: Legislative Efforts to Embed Transparency, Participation, and Representation in Agency Op- erations, by Clinton T. Brass and Wendy Ginsberg ................................... 281 Committee Assignments and Party Leadership: An Analysis of Develop- ments in the Modern Congress, by Judy Schneider ................................... 299 IV. Policymaking Case Studies Congress and Financial Crises, by Edward V. Murphy and N. Eric Weiss . 325 Shocks to the System: Congress and the Establishment of the Depart- ment of Homeland Security, by William L. Painter ................................... 353 Like Clockwork: Senate Consideration of the National Defense Authoriza- tion Act, by Colleen J. Shogan ..................................................................... 369 The SBA and Small Business Policymaking in Congress, by Robert Jay Dilger and Sean Lowry ................................................................................. 383 Use of the Appropriations Process to Influence Census Bureau Policy: The Case of Adjustment, by Jennifer D. Williams ..................................... 399 The Evolution of U.S. Disaster Relief Policy, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Francis X. McCarthy ..................................................................................... 413 Congress’ Role in the Evolution of Federal Block Grants as a Policy Instrument: From Community Development to Homeland Security, by Eugene Boyd and Natalie Keegan ............................................................... 425 (ix) VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 5905 Sfmt 5905 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
12. x Page IV. Policymaking Case Studies—Continued The Tax Extenders: How Congressional Rules and Outside Interests Shape Policy, by Molly F. Sherlock ............................................................. 441 The Dynamics of Congressional Policymaking: Tax Reform, by Jane G. Gravelle .......................................................................................................... 457 VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 5905 Sfmt 5905 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
13. I. OVERVIEW VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
14. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
15. The Evolving Congress: Overview and Analysis of the Modern Era WALTER J. OLESZEK Senior Specialist in American National Government Congress is an institution that constantly undergoes change. Sometimes the changes are big and sometimes they are small. The changes are driven by a variety of external and internal factors, many of which are highlighted in this report. The report’s basic purpose is to analyze the relation- ship between two main centers of power in the House and Senate: committee power and party power. Sometimes one center of power appears to dominate in shaping policies; at other times it is the other, or both might be in some degree of equilibrium. Specifically, the report focuses on the con- figuration of internal power in the House: from the party government era (1890–1910), to the committee government period (1920–the early 1970s), to the subcommittee govern- ment stage (1970s–1980s), and the recentralization of au- thority in the party leadership (1990s). Comparable eras are examined for the Senate, with significant attention given to the 1950s Senate, the ‘‘individualist’’ Senate (1960s–1990s), to the polarized Senate (1990s– ) of today. The time periods for the different House and Senate eras are approximations. The report closes with an assess- ment of the tension between gridlock and governance in the contemporary Congress. To celebrate the centenary of the Congressional Research Service (1914–2014), analysts in the Government and Finance Division pre- pared a series of reports to highlight the evolving character and role of the legislative branch. The Founders expected Congress to be the ‘‘first branch’’ of government. Consider that half the words in the U.S. Constitution define the roles and responsibilities of the Nation’s bicameral national legislature. Congress was granted ‘‘all legislative powers’’ as well as explicit authority (article I, section 8) to make ‘‘all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’’ all the powers enumerated in the Constitution (the power to tax, spend, borrow, and to create executive offices and in- ferior courts, for example). Congress also has implied powers, such as the authority to investigate and oversee the administration of laws. Provisions in the Constitution and the 17th Amendment also provide for the election of House and Senate Members. (3) VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
16. 4 In brief, Congress’ pivotal role in the Nation’s separation of pow- ers system, with its panoply of ‘‘checks and balances’’—overlapping powers accorded the three branches, such as the ability of the President to veto bills passed by Congress, subject to an override by a two-thirds vote of each Chamber—is rooted in the Constitu- tion. In the view of a congressional scholar: The Constitution has successfully provided two features of national political life that seem unassailable. The first is a Congress that is institutionally robust and ca- pable of gathering information and seeking opinions independently of the president [and initiating legislation in its own right]. The second is that Congress is . . . linked directly to the people through elections. The president is a stronger rival than he once was, but he is not the only game in town. It is that unbreakable electoral link that provides [Congress’s] continuing legitimacy, ensuring real political power.1 Despite Congress’ prominent place in the Nation’s separation of powers system, public criticism of the legislative branch has been common since its creation. Many factors account for this recurrent pattern, such as people’s dislike of various features of the law- making process (arguments, partisan conflicts, imperfect solutions, and so on). As two scholars have noted, Congress is ‘‘structured to embody what we dislike about modern democratic government, which is almost everything.’’ 2 Various lawmakers also express dis- appointment in Congress’ performance, while many commentators regularly call our contemporary national legislature broken, overly partisan, unproductive, or dysfunctional. There are also Members who state that Congress is functioning as the Framers intended de- spite the stalemates (policy and procedural), delays, and conflicts that understandably suffuse the lawmaking process.3 In a country as diverse as the United States, with scores of com- peting interests, it is not easy for elected representatives to come together to enact legislation that promotes, as noted in The Fed- eralist (No. 57), ‘‘the common good of the society.’’ What constitutes the ‘‘common good’’ is not self-evident and is open to profound dis- agreement, especially when the two parties—as in today’s Con- gress—are sharply divided by philosophical, ideological, geo- graphical, and political differences. One consequence: confrontation rather than compromise creates considerable turbulence and uncer- tainty in congressional policymaking. That Congress has shortcomings goes without saying. Law- makers themselves are cognizant of institutional ailments and reg- ularly propose ways to improve the organization and operation of the House or Senate, as the case might be. From its earliest days, many Members have worked to improve and strengthen Congress’ fundamental responsibilities—lawmaking, representation, and oversight—so Members might better address and resolve the Na- 1 Charles Stewart III, ‘‘Congress and the Constitutional System,’’ in Paul Quirk and Sarah Binder, eds., The Legislative Branch (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 30. 2 John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, Congress as Public Enemy (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 158. See also the related CRS centennial report in this volume, Understanding Congressional Approval: Public Opinion from 1974 to 2014, by Jessica C. Gerrity. 3 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, despite the many controversies that occur in the Cham- ber, stated: ‘‘Congress is not broke. Congress works the way it should. Does that mean it is al- ways a very pleasant, happy place? Do I wish it weren’t as difficult as it has been in the last few months? I wish it was much better than that. That is where we are . . . . Through all the years and conflicts we have had, we have been able to come together and reach reasonable con- clusions. The great experiment that started in 1787 has been very successful . . . .’’ Congressional Record, v. 157, August 1, 2011, p. S5156. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
17. 5 tion’s pressing problems. Although frustrations, disputations, and conflicts typically accompany consequential initiatives to revamp legislative structures and operations, change and innovation are part of Congress’ DNA. These attributes enable Congress to remain a vital and effective instrument of governance. While Congress cannot resolve every national or international problem, its record of achievement over 200 years merits high praise—the Bill of Rights; the elevation of public health as a na- tional priority and the provision of resources to treat many dis- eases; the creation of a system of land-grant colleges and univer- sities; the construction of an interstate highway system; a strong military; and so on. If laws failed to ameliorate problems or even make them worse, the Nation’s open system enables feedback from Members, attentive constituents, outside groups, and others that can prompt corrective actions by the legislative branch. Constitu- ents often overlook or simply do not appreciate or recognize the leg- islature’s many accomplishments and how these attainments affect their lives. As a Congressman pointed out: [A] group of constituents visiting my [district] office told me that Congress was irrelevant. So I asked them a few questions. How had they gotten to my office? On the interstate highway, they said. Had any of them gone to the local university? Yes, they said, admitting they’d got help from federal student loans. Did any of them have grandparents on Social Security and Medicare? Well sure, they replied, picking up on where I was headed. Their lives had been profoundly affected by Con- gress. They just hadn’t focused on all the connections before.4 The focus and connection of the reports in this committee print are to demonstrate that Congress plays a multiplicity of crucial roles in the Nation’s constitutional system; that it is responsive to constructive criticism; that it can mediate conflicts and differences in the polity; that it regularly strives to strengthen its legislative, representative, and oversight functions; that it can produce effec- tive and innovative policies; that it is a vital check on the ‘‘Presi- dential branch’’ of government; and that it is responsive to the con- cerns and needs of constituents, American society, and the world community. Important to emphasize is that Congress has always been subject to various criticisms, some warranted and some not. Today, a major criticism is that Congress cannot address a plethora of pressing na- tional problems because it is often in a state of policymaking paral- ysis. Two points about national policymaking merit mention. First, consequential laws are the product of the House, the Senate, and the President. No single elective unit or person can make laws on their own. Second, as James Madison stated in The Federalist (No. 52), Congress is ‘‘a substitute for a meeting of the citizens in per- son.’’ If the people are divided on what they want done to resolve major national problems, then their divisions will manifest them- selves in Congress. In the view of former Speaker Carl Albert (1973–1977), major legislative accomplishments occur ‘‘only because 4 Lee Hamilton, ‘‘What I Wish Political Scientists Would Teach About Congress,’’ PS: Political Science & Politics, vol. 33, December 2000, p. 758. Hamilton was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965–1999). Currently, he is the director of the Center on Con- gress at Indiana University. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
18. 6 the American people had reached that point in their history where they wanted them done.’’ 5 This report analyzes the evolution of Congress: how and why it constantly adapts to new circumstances, issues, and problems. For example, the ‘‘regular order’’ of policymaking in one era is often displaced in whole or in part by a new ‘‘regular order,’’ commonly prompted by an array of external and internal developments. The report’s principal focus, then, is institutional change: how the House and Senate have evolved as policymaking assemblies, espe- cially with regard to the role of parties and committees. Selected historical changes in the membership makeup of Congress, such as the professionalization of lawmakers’ careers, are also included in the discussion. The report is structured to examine several objectives. First, it begins with a discussion of some of the external and internal forces that commonly trigger major revisions to the distribution of power in the House and Senate. These drivers of change typically involve the combination of external stimuli and internal advocates. Both act as catalysts to bring about fundamental congressional change: for example, a new equilibrium of power that replaces or modifies the previous one. Second, because the election of new lawmakers is sometimes a major factor in instigating congressional alterations, the next section addresses selected changes in the membership and career patterns of lawmakers. Third, the report provides an overview of the evolution of power in the House, and suggests why different institutional patterns of policymaking periodically emerge in the Chamber. Specifically, this part examines the evolution of the House from an era of ‘‘party gov- ernment’’—the speakerships of Thomas Reed (1889–1891; 1895– 1899) and Joseph Cannon (1903–1911)—to ‘‘committee government’’ (roughly 1920–1970) to ‘‘subcommittee government’’ (the 1970s to the early 1980s). These governing models reflect the central tend- ency of each era rather than a time when party leaders, committee chairs, or subcommittee chairs totally dominated Chamber pro- ceedings. After all, parties need committees to review and process legislation, and committees need party leaders to schedule and structure proceedings on the floor. The fourth objective, encompassing two sections of the report, is an examination of the reemergence of strong party leadership, fo- cusing on the speakerships of Newt Gingrich (1995–1999), Dennis Hastert (1999–2007) and Nancy Pelosi (2007–2011). The speaker- ship of John Boehner (2011– ) is also briefly noted. Fifth, the report provides an overview of three Senate eras: the 1950s Senate, the individualist Senate (1960s to 1980s), and the polarized Senate of today. (The time periods specified for these eras, as for the House, are approximations.) Sixth, several sum- mary observations conclude the report. I. Drivers of Congressional Change Congress and its membership are constantly changing and adapt- ing to various conditions, pressures, and forces. Every election cycle, for instance, produces large or small changes in the makeup 5 Congressional Record, v. 112, May 23, 1966, p. 10637. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
19. 7 of the House and Senate membership and in the salience of various issues. Historical circumstances can also provoke legislative change. Consider enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the first comprehensive reform in Congress’ history. Many leaders inside and outside Congress expressed concern about the condition of the legislative branch. During the Depression and New Deal period of the 1930s, they had witnessed a dramatic increase in the authority of the executive branch. Then, on the eve of World War II, they watched the rapid fall of many European parliamen- tary systems to Hitler’s military onslaught.6 As a result, public interest in congressional reorganization be- came widespread among lawmakers, in the press and popular jour- nals, and on the radio. Academics, led by the Committee on Con- gress of the American Political Science Association, prepared re- ports on ways to improve Congress. They also mobilized scholarly and public support for congressional reform. These conditions pro- vided the incentive and motivation for numerous Members in both parties and Chambers to come together to strengthen their own branch of government. EXTERNAL FORCES Many other external and internal developments can impel insti- tutional change. Three are noted for illustrative purposes. First, new media technologies have altered how lawmakers communicate with their constituents and with each other. For example, the late Senator Edward Kennedy lamented the decline of face-to-face inter- actions with colleagues as lawmakers increasingly ‘‘speak’’ to each other 24/7 via various social media.7 A House chair said he reached out to constituents with a social media campaign, ‘‘lending his voice to an ‘explainer’ video walking laymen through the ins and outs of reauthorizing water infrastructure projects.’’ 8 Second, global events constantly impact Congress’ agenda and ac- tivities. The agenda of the contemporary Congress, for example, is replete with issues such as the humanitarian crisis associated with the large number of child immigrants from Central America fleeing violence and crossing the Nation’s southwestern border; civil wars in Iraq and Syria; an assertive China; or Russian President Vladi- mir Putin’s aggressive actions against Ukraine. Third, unlike the post-World War II era when there were liberals and conservatives in both parties, today, as a current Senator noted, ‘‘most Democrats are far left; most Republicans are to the 6 As Representative (later Senator) A.S. Mike Monroney, the vice chairman of the joint com- mittee that drafted the 1946 LRA, pointed out, ‘‘[I]n almost every country of the world, the par- liamentary system has failed. In countries where dictators have taken over, it has always been because the parliamentary systems have proved their inability to cope with the complex and difficult problems that face modern society. That is the real significance of congressional reorga- nization. An effective and efficient Congress is our first bulwark against dictatorship and the leading institution we have today to protect our liberties and democracy.’’ See A.S. Mike Monroney, ‘‘The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946: A First Appraisal,’’ in A.S. Mike Monroney, et al., eds., The Strengthening of American Political Institutions (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1949), p. 31. 7 John Stanton, ‘‘Kennedy Memoir Recalls Chummy Senate,’’ Roll Call, September 15, 2009, p. 26. 8 Emma Dumain and Nathan Hurst, ‘‘House GOP Sees Water Bill as Post-Earmark Success,’’ Roll Call, May 19, 2014, p. 8. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
20. 8 right.’’ 9 Centrist lawmakers are a vanishing breed on Capitol Hill. This development occurred over time, but the political reality today is that Democratic and Republican lawmakers have intense dis- agreements on a host of domestic and international issues. These divergent perspectives reflect the views of their respective electoral coalitions. The South, for instance, was once a solid Democratic region. Today, the South—a region generally reputed for being antitax, promilitary, strongly evangelical, and antilabor, for example—is a GOP stronghold triggered by events such as the civil rights move- ment, the rise of the religious right, changes in societal attitudes and values, and demonstrations against the Vietnam war. Conserv- ative southern Democrats switched parties to become conservative Republicans. The result: a partisan regional realignment that has ‘‘southernized’’ the Republican Party on Capitol Hill. The switch in party dominance in the South also moved the Democratic Party in a more liberal direction. In brief, the two major parties differ racially (a large percentage of Democrats are nonwhite, Republicans are predominately white); culturally (for example, Democrats tend to favor same-sex mar- riage, many Republicans do not); and ideologically (Democrats favor an activist government, Republicans prefer to shrink the role of the government). Unsurprisingly, constituents in ‘‘red’’ and ‘‘blue’’ States vote for lawmakers who strongly support their values and policy preferences. The result of the sharp divide between the two parties is often policy gridlock, triggered by the inability of Democrats and Republicans to resolve their differences by com- promise. Add to this perplexity a constitutional separation of pow- ers system that ‘‘was not designed to work under conditions of in- tense partisan polarization.’’ 10 INTERNAL FORCES Institutional change is fostered by a number of internal chal- lenges and concerns. For example, aggressive Presidents can pro- voke legislative change, especially if they take actions perceived as undermining Congress’ constitutional prerogatives. When President Richard Nixon clashed with Congress over spending priorities by impounding (refusing to spend) funds for programs he disliked— even though he had signed them into law—it prompted Congress to reclaim its budgetary prerogatives by enacting a landmark over- haul of its budgetary system: the Congressional Budget and Im- poundment Control Act of 1974. President Nixon’s impoundments, wrote a scholar, were ‘‘designed to rewrite national policy at the ex- pense of congressional power and intent.’’ 11 House and Senate changes are also advanced by individual law- makers, ad hoc groups, and by each congressional party. There is little doubt that strong-willed and change-oriented individuals have always influenced public policy and played major roles in pro- moting legislative change. Many people may have forgotten that, 9 Kathy Kiely and Wendy Koch, ‘‘Committee Shaped by Party Ties,’’ USA Today, October 5, 1998, p. 2A. 10 Alan I. Abramowitz, ‘‘The Electoral Roots of America’s Dysfunctional Government,’’ Presi- dential Studies Quarterly, vol. 43, December 2013, p. 727. 11 Allen Schick, Congress and Money (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1980), p. 46. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
21. 9 over the decades, many reform-oriented lawmakers promoted major revisions in how Congress operates in making decisions. These law- makers include Senator Robert La Follette, Jr., and Representative Monroney (authors of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946); Representatives Richard Bolling (a champion of budget and com- mittee reform in 1973–1974) and David Dreier (a leader in revamp- ing House rules when Republicans won control of that Chamber in 1994); and Senators Adlai Stevenson, Jr. (chair of the Senate panel that revamped committee jurisdictions in 1977) and Howard Baker, Jr. (a strong advocate of televising Senate floor proceedings, which occurred in 1986). The evolution of Congress is shaped in large measure by the people elected to serve in the House and Senate and their commitment to improving and strengthening the legisla- tive branch. II. Membership Composition: Then and Now The membership characteristics and party affiliations of the peo- ple who served in the House and Senate in 1953 and 2013 are highlighted in Table 1. The table contrasts individual attributes of the people who served in those years. Generally, changes in the composition of the House and Senate occur slowly; however, when the makeup does exhibit major change, it suggests that larger eco- nomic, political, and social forces are underway in the electorate— an increase in the minority population and its access to and inter- est in civic participation, for example. Broad societal developments may (1) influence who seeks to serve in Congress, (2) shape the agenda priorities of the House and Senate, and (3) reveal shifts in the regional composition of the two parties. Three features of Con- gress’ composition—the number of lawyer-politicians, its gender and ethnic diversity, and the professionalization (a full-time occu- pation) of legislative careers—spotlight important membership pat- terns and trends.12 THE LEGAL PROFESSION Lawyers have usually dominated the membership of both Cham- bers. As one account noted, ‘‘From 1780 to 1930, two thirds of sen- ators and about half the House of Representatives were lawyers.’’ 13 The actual proportion varies over time. For example, in the 105th House (1997–1999), Members with business backgrounds (181) out- numbered lawyers (172) ‘‘for the first time since Congressional Quarterly began keeping records of Members’ occupations in 1953.’’ 14 However, lawyers outnumbered business people in the Senate, keeping Members with law degrees as the number one oc- cupation in the 105th Congress. 12 See the related CRS centennial report in this volume, The 113th Congress and the U.S. Pop- ulation: Discussion and Analysis of Selected Characteristics, by Jennifer D. Williams, Ida A. Brudnick, and Jennifer E. Manning. 13 Mark C. Miller, ‘‘Lawyers in Congress: What Difference Does It Make?’’ Congress & The Presidency, vol. 10, spring 1993, p. 2. Also see Mark C. Miller, The High Priests of American Politics: The Role of Lawyers in American Political Institutions (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1995). 14 Allan Freeman, ‘‘Lawyers Take a Back Seat in the 105th Congress,’’ CQ Weekly, January 4, 1997, p. 27. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
22. 10 Table 1. Selected Characteristics of Congress, 1953 and 2013 Category Year House Senate Ethnicity: Hispanic/Latino Americans ................................................................ 1953 1 1 2013 31 4 African Americans .............................................................................. 1953 2 0 2013 40 1 American Indian/Native Americans ................................................... 1953 0 0 2013 2 0 Asian Pacific Americans .................................................................... 1953 0 0 2013 10 1 Gender: Women ................................................................................................ 1953 11 1 2013 78 20 Occupations: Attorneys ............................................................................................ 1953 249 59 2013 156 55 Physicians .......................................................................................... 1953 5 0 2013 16 2 Party Affiliation: Democrats .......................................................................................... 1953 213 47 2013 201 53 Republicans ....................................................................................... 1953 221 48 2013 234 45 Independents ...................................................................................... 1953 1 1 2013 0 2 Source: ‘‘How Congress is Different These Days,’’ U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 30, 1978, p. 32. Current data compiled by Jennifer E. Manning, Information Research Specialist, Knowledge Service Group, CRS. Constituents seem to believe that, more than other occupations, lawyers have the requisite training to make laws, such as indepth knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and heightened capacity to un- derstand the procedures and rules that shape substantive deci- sions. Lawyers also have certain political marketing advantages. An observation about lawyers made by a House Member in 1897 still retains some currency today. He wrote: ‘‘If [a lawyer] is rea- sonably successful his name is constantly in the newspapers pub- lished in his locality, and he generally needs no introduction to the people of his congressional district. When a vacancy occurs in the representation he is likely to have friends everywhere who are zealous in promoting his cause.’’ 15 Lawyers are also viewed as skilled in advocacy, argumentation, and persuasion, qualities viewed as essential to the lawmaking process. Despite the significant number of lawyers in Congress, contem- porary Congresses have witnessed a large number of Members elected with an array of different occupational experiences and pro- fessions. They are also not all career politicians. There have been actors, athletes, and astronauts who have served in Congress, not to mention physicians, professors, teachers, military officers, or 15 Representative William H. Moody, ‘‘Lawyers in Congress,’’ The Illustrated American, Octo- ber 23, 1897, p. 523. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
23. 11 journalists.16 Compared to earlier eras, there is a broader cross sec- tion of Americans that run and win seats in Congress. DIVERSITY White males have been overrepresented in the House and Senate from its very beginning. By contrast, women have always been underrepresented in the House and Senate. Remember that only with the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 did women at- tain the right to vote. That amendment stated: ‘‘The right of citi- zens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.’’ In 1917, GOP Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana, an activist in the women’s suffrage movement, became the first woman to be elected to Congress. Montana was among several States, prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment, that had granted women the right to vote. Today, there are a record number of women in the 113th Con- gress (2013–2015), which also includes African American, Hispanic American, and Asian/Pacific Islander women. At the start of the 113th Congress, there were 78 females in the House and 20 in the Senate, still far below their proportion (over 50 percent) in the gen- eral population. Although there have been elections called the ‘‘Year of the Woman,’’ as in 1992, the influx of female lawmakers has occurred slowly, in part because of the power of incumbency (most Members are male), family choices, and a shortage of com- petitive seats. Nonetheless, the role of women in today’s Congress and in the workforce has changed significantly. A historic event oc- curred in January 2007 when Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi of California was elected to be the first female Speaker in the House’s history. During the 1920s, women lawmakers ‘‘were a curiosity both for their male colleagues and the national press, which devoted considerable attention to their arrival.’’ 17 A profile of congressional Members makes plain that America’s major ethnic groups—African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians— are underrepresented in Congress. The recent decennial census of 2010 indicated that African Americans constitute about 13 percent of the overall population and 10 percent of Congress; Hispanics are near 17 percent of the national population and around 7 percent of Congress’ membership; and Asians are about 3 percent of Con- gress’ membership but around 5 percent of the national population. Despite the obstacles each group has confronted in winning seats in Congress, such as bigotry and ‘‘Jim Crow’’ laws, there has been progress (albeit slow). Important to note is a recent and historic House membership change. In 2013, the Democratic Party was reshaped demographi- cally: it became a ‘‘majority-minority’’ party. More than half of House Democrats are women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. A significant consequence of the change is that women and 16 David T. Canon, Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). 17 Women in Congress, 1917–2006 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2006), p. 2. This volume was pre- pared under the direction of the U.S. Committee on House Administration and by the Office of History and Preservation, Office of the Clerk of the House. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
24. 12 ethnic minorities inform the policymaking process in a manner that a Chamber filled almost exclusively with white men cannot. THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE The career patterns of lawmakers have undergone over time a number of important changes that have transformed the work and role of both Congress and its Members. A brief ‘‘then’’ (the 19th century and early part of the 20th century) and ‘‘now’’ comparison highlights several developments that led to today’s professionalized Congress. Among the changes worth noting are these two. PART-TIME TO FULL-TIME INSTITUTION Congress functioned largely as a part-time institution until around the post-World War II era. One rough indicator of the shift to a full-time institution is to compare the date of a Congress’ be- ginning and the date of its adjournment.18 By the 86th Congress (1959–1961), setting aside the war years (1941–1945), Congress al- ways adjourned during the fall or the winter months, at times late in December and even into January 3 of the new year. A major con- tributor to year-round sessions was an increase in and the com- plexity of Congress’ workload, triggered by events such as wars and economic crises. Unsurprisingly, a full-time Congress places large demands on today’s lawmakers. They must handle the require- ments of policymaking and oversight while in Washington, DC (often on a Tuesday to Thursday schedule), as well as return to their district or State regularly to serve the needs of their constitu- ents. Lawmakers today work an average of 70 hours per week. As the wife of a former Senator noted: ‘‘It is a 24/7/365 [day] posi- tion.’’ 19 By comparison, consider the comments of Representative Joseph Martin, who served continuously in the House for 42 years (1925 to 1967), including stints as Speaker during the 80th (1947–1949) and 83d (1953–1955) Congresses. Contrasting the House when he was first elected to the House at the end of his career, Martin stat- ed: The great difference between life in Congress a generation ago and life there now was the absence then of the immense pressures that came with the Depression, World War II, Korea, and the Cold War. Foreign affairs were an inconsequential problem in Congress in the 1920s. For one week the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee debated to the exclusion of all other matters the question of authorizing a $20,000 appropriation for an international poultry show in Tulsa. This item, which we finally approved, was about the most important issue that came before the com- mittee in the whole session.20 Today’s year-round Congress grapples with numerous global, technological, and domestic issues that surely would surprise former Speaker Martin, from climate change to same-sex marriage to net neutrality to the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States. Unsurprisingly, large increases in the Nation’s population contributed to an expansion of Congress’ agenda and gradual in- 18 This information is available in the statistical part of the Official Congressional Directory, 113th Congress, which is published by the U.S. Government Printing Office. 19 Quoted in Life in Congress: The Member Perspective, A Joint Research Report by the Con- gressional Management Foundation and the Society for Human Resource Management, 2013, p. 33. 20 Joseph Martin, My Fifty Years in Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 47. VerDate Aug 31 2005 10:50 Nov 14, 2014 Jkt 089394 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\EVOLVING\89394.TXT KAYNE
+1-315-636-4485
+91 98151-74050 
