Congress PDF

Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Chapter 5 Congress Chapter Outline I The Constitutional Basis of the Congress of the United States II Congressional Leadership III Theories of Representation IV The US House of Representatives V The US Senate VI How a Bill Becomes a Law VII Oversight VIII Impea...

Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Chapter 5 Congress Chapter Outline I The Constitutional Basis of the Congress of the United States II Congressional Leadership III Theories of Representation IV The US House of Representatives V The US Senate VI How a Bill Becomes a Law VII Oversight VIII Impeachments I The Constitutional Basis of the Congress of the United States Learning Outcomes o Identify specific articles, sections, and amendments in the Constitution of the United States that grant or deny power to Congress. o Identify specific grants of power to Congress. o Identify specific powers denied to Congress. The powers and responsibilities of the U.S. Congress are described in Article I of the Constitution of the United States. Despite its bicameral design of two chambers of lawmakers, the Congress is said to be equal in the affairs of law making as it is necessary for both chambers to pass a bill into law. Grants of Power to the Congress The heart of Congress’s lawmaking ability is found in Article I Section 8, which contains a list of eighteen enumerated powers for each of its two chambers to make law. The first seventeen powers are specific and address many of the primary areas of legislation most citizens typically expect from their government. Collectively, these expressed congressional powers include: Taxation Borrowing money Regulating interstate and cross US border commerce Establishing a national military Funding national armed forces Declaring war Establishing postal services Establishing national standards of weights and measures Creating a national currency Creating laws regarding immigration 1  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Perhaps Congress’ greatest law-making power is its ability to control the budget, that is, the power to pass taxes and to spend money. The Constitution forbids Congress to lower the salary of the president or any federal judge while these officials are in office. However, only the Congress can increase salaries (including their own). The power to control the staffing of the other two branches is also controlled partly by Congress. Funding for the entire government of the United States must pass through Congress. The president has veto power to possibly stop a bill from becoming law, so this is a shared power. Another power that is especially important is the power to declare war. Congress may do so by a majority vote of both houses. In the Twentieth Century, however, the presidency largely usurped this power by simply making war with other countries without consulting Congress. Congress has tried to get some of this power back by passing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (which will be discussed more in the presidential chapter), but this law has had extremely limited effect on the ability of the president to use the U.S. military as he sees fit. Congress also has the power to initiate Constitutional amendments by a super-majority or two-thirds vote and override presidential vetoes by the same margin. Since getting two-thirds of Congress to agree on anything controversial is exceedingly difficult, constitutional amendments and congressional overrides of presidential vetoes are rare. In his eight years as president, Barack Obama had only one veto overridden. In Donald Trump's four years as president, Congress performed the veto override once, and throughout his four years as President Joe Biden never saw any of his vetoes overridden. With these three current examples, it is plain to see that when a president threatens to use his veto power the Congress knows that his intention is backed by real power. Denials of Power to Congress Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution places several denials of power on Congress. Immediately following Article I, Section 8’s grants of power, Section 9’s denials are designed to protect individual rights and ensure that federal authority is exercised within certain constitutional boundaries. Section 9’s denials of power reflect some of the fears expressed at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 of a powerful new national government. Section 9 also reminds us of the power of the English Bill of Rights in the emerging American system, as many of those rights are reinterpreted into constitutionally protected rights. Some of the most important restrictions on the Congress’ lawmaking power include: A denial of suspension of habeas corpus, which prevents Congress from passing laws that allow arbitrary detention of individuals without due process, except in extreme national emergencies. A prohibition of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Congress is prohibited from enacting laws that single out individuals for punishment without judicial proceedings (bills of attainder) or laws that retroactively criminalize actions (ex post facto laws). If one is to be charged with a federal crime, the criminal activity must have taken place after the passage of a federal statute(s). A denial on taxing exports prevents the federal government from taxing exports, ensuring that states retain control over their own economies without undue federal burden. One could imagine, for example, the damage a tax on the export of oranges might do to the economy of Florida. A denial of titles of nobility and foreign emoluments, preventing the establishment of an aristocracy in the United States and ensures that public officials remain free from the influence of foreign gifts (emoluments). A restriction on the slave trade, which temporarily restricted Congress’s ability to legislate on the international slave trade, but this limitation was time-bound, expiring in 1808. After that, Congress banned the importation of slaves through the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807. This 2  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby provision was a key component in the three-fifths compromise at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Northern delegates agreed to temporarily halt any attempt to ban the import of slaves in exchange for southern support for the new Constitution of the United States. The move would only be temporary, however, and lawmakers in the North successfully implemented a ban after 1808. Additional grants and denials on Congress’ ability to make law would later be added to the Constitution by means of the amendment process detailed in Article V of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments protecting important individual liberties and rights such as speech, religious worship, press, and due process, were added later to secure even more protection against governmental power. General Welfare A final and quite significant grant of Congressional lawmaking power can be found in Article 1, Section 8’s General Welfare clause, which allows Congress to pass laws and raise funds to promote the general welfare of the nation: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The General Welfare clause’s meaning has been a subject of debate since the early days of the Republic, with differing views on how broadly or narrowly its grant of power to Congress should be interpreted. Some early thinkers, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for a narrow interpretation of the General Welfare clause. They believed that it only allowed Congress to raise taxes and spend money for purposes explicitly listed in the Constitution, like maintaining the military or regulating commerce, but did not grant a general authority to legislate on any issue affecting the welfare of the nation. Others, such as Alexander Hamilton, argued for a broader interpretation allowing Congress the authority to tax and spend for any purpose that promotes the public's general welfare. Such an approach, if the resulting lawmaking didn't explicitly violate the Constitution, would allow for a more expansive federal government. It can be argued, given the size and scope of the federal government today, that Hamilton’s view won the day. Congressional lawmaking power under the authority of the General Welfare Clause grew dramatically during the period of the Great Depression. Democrats in Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, seeking to implement a variety of programs aimed at restructuring the American economy, based many of their proposals such as Social Security and unemployment compensation on a broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause. In a series of US Supreme Court rulings - United States v. Butler (1936), Helveting v. Davis (1937) - the Court backed Roosevelt's interpretation of general welfare stating that it is up to Congress to determine what constitutes general welfare. Since the Great Depression, Congress has relied heavily on the General Welfare Clause to justify a wide range of federal programs, laws, and expenditures aimed at promoting the public good. Many of the programs even carry the nickname of “welfare” when discussed by the public. Social Security, Medicare (a program to help senior citizens with drug costs), Medicaid (a program to help those in poverty with medical costs), unemployment insurance, food stamps, public housing, and anti-pollution programs are all examples of federal lawmaking power that has been authorized under the General Welfare clause. II Congressional Leadership Learning Outcomes o Identify the leadership system in the United States House of Representatives. 3  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby o Identify the leadership system in the United States Senate. o Explain the powers and responsibilities of the leaders in Congress. Each Congressional session lasts two years. After a congressional election, each of the two major political parties will be designated either majority or minority status based on how many seats they occupy in each body. In the 118th Congress (2023-2024) the Republican Party had a majority in the Senate (53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, 2 Independents). Therefore, the majority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, from New York is a Democrat. Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, is the minority leader. In the House, Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, is the Speaker. Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, is the majority leader. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, is minority leader. In 2024, Senators and Representatives received $174,000 per year. The Majority and Minority Leaders in both the House and Senate and the President pro tempore of the Senate earned $193,400. The Speaker of the House earned $223,500. Under a 1989 law, members of Congress are entitled to an annual cost-of-living increase equal to one-half a percentage point less than the president's recommended raise for federal workers. Some years Congress refuses to grant itself raises. The Speaker of the House of Representatives The single most powerful position in Congress is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The majority party of the House chooses who will occupy the position by a vote. He is, in fact, a prominent leader of the majority party in the House but has the title of Speaker and is nominally the leader of the entire chamber rather than purely a spokesperson for their political party. The person who has the title of majority leader in the House, (Steve Scalise -LA), is the formal leader of the party with the most seats in the chamber but also resembles an informal second in command of the majority party due to the fact that the Speaker is also from the majority leader’s party. The Speaker of the House has some very special powers. He leads his party in creating rules of the House and he is the final interpreter of those rules. This means that he can have direct influence on any bill that goes before the full House. He can, within limits, determine when a bill will be voted on. The Majority Leader and the Majority Whips help the Speaker count the possible votes and assist her in trying to convince members of his party to vote for or against a particular bill. The Speaker controls (again within limits) the members of the majority party on the Rules Speaker Mike Johnson meets with Curtis James Jackson III, a.k.a. 50cent, and Committee in the House. Almost all legislation thanks him for investing in the Shreveport, Louisiana, community. that is passed in the House must go through this committee before it is voted on by the full House. The Rules Committee can allow a few, many or no amendments to bills on the floor. This gives the Speaker some direct influence on almost every bill in the House. Additional powers and responsibilities of the Speaker include: The Speaker appoints all members of the majority party to all conference committees. The Speaker also appoints all members of his party to all select or special committees, and he is the chairperson of the committee that appoints all first-term House members to standing committees. 4  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby The Speaker of the House of Representatives is the most powerful person in the U.S. Congress--and therefore one of the most influential people in the world. Leadership in the Senate The highest level of leadership in the Senate is the President of the Senate. Constitutionally, the role of President of the Senate is reserved to the Vice President of the United States. The President of the Senate, however, cannot introduce bills, sit on committees, or vote on the passage of bills except in the rare cases when there is a tie vote resulting from a vote of the Senate body. At that point, and only that point, the president can cast a vote to ultimately decide the fate of the proposed bill. Because of the limited voting and committee power of the president, the Vice-President will typically relinquish the day to day running of the Senate to a Senate President Pro-Tem, a Senator from the majority party who typically has the greatest seniority (number of years in the body) in her party (the current President Pro-Tem is Sen. Patty Murray D-WA). The power of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate depends on many things, including the party of the current president, the personal appeal of the majority leader himself or herself, the coherence or solidarity of party members Senate President Pro-Tem Patty (Republicans are usually more cohesive and vote together as a block) and very Murray takes questions from the press. importantly, the number of seats that the majority party has. This is important because of the filibuster. The Senate allows every senator to speak as long as he or she wishes, as long as what is said is somehow related to the bill at hand. When finished the Senator has the right to recognize the next speaker. If senators from the minority party don't want to pass a given bill or approve a certain presidential nominee, they continue to talk and to recognize members of their own party until the majority party pulls the bill or the person up for approval. This is called a filibuster. To break a filibuster, the Senate must invoke cloture, which requires 3/5ths of Senators voting and present to stop debate. Since cloture votes are so important it normally requires 60 votes to stop debate or to invoke cloture. The majority and minority leaders have members that assist them in their duties. The most important positions beneath the leaders are called "Whips". The Whips help the leaders in almost everything that they do. The term "whip" was derived from their function of trying to whip the members of their parties behind the party's goals or to keep them in line with the party's position on particular bills. Again, the House of Representatives has a majority leader, but much of his authority is shared by the Speaker of the House, who is the true leader of the majority party in the House. These congressional leaders are responsible for setting the agenda for their party each session and each year. The agenda is a set of priorities that the party would like to achieve. Party leaders are the chief spokespersons for their parties. The majority and minority leaders represent their parties to the U.S. public. They are often invited on television programs to explain what their party is doing or thinking. The print media also frequently quotes them. They argue their party's views in negotiations within each house and with the President in important conferences. The majority and minority leaders are the day-to-day floor leaders also. They devise strategies to pass or defeat specific bills on the floor of the House and Senate. They frequently huddle with members of their party to make last minute changes in tactics or to devise longer-term policies that will push their parties' agendas. 5  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby The majority and minority leaders are the chairpersons of the committees who determine which standing committees first-year Congresspersons will be assigned to. Since a congressperson cannot change standing committees once he or she is assigned, this is an important power. There are other powers that these leaders have including having control of much pork (discussed later in the chapter) and being in a position of collecting a great deal of campaign funds. These campaign funds can be used for their own campaigns or to help other members of their party in their electoral campaigns. III Theories of Representation Learning Outcomes o Explain how members of Congress might perform their representation function according to the instructed delegate, trustee, and politico theories. If you ever find yourself elected to a position like those held in the US Congress, how would you perform the role of representing the people? There is no obvious answer to this question because representing the voters can often be maddening or tricky due to the changing nature of public opinion and the political machinations of other members of Congress. In general terms, there are three theories of representation that can be discussed within the context of properly representing the voters, but each has possible problems or limitations - instructed delegate, trustee, and politico. Instructed delegate representation emphasizes the direct will of the constituents. Elected officials act as "delegates" who are instructed to vote in accordance with the specific preferences or directives of their constituents, even if those directives may conflict with the representatives' personal beliefs or judgments. In this model, representatives are seen as mere conduits for the views of their constituents and are expected to adhere strictly to the instructions they receive from them. In this sense, the delegate function could be said to be the purest form of representing the desires and needs of the voting public. In contrast to the instructed delegate model, the trustee model allows elected officials to exercise their own judgment and expertise when making decisions on behalf of their constituents. Elected officials act as "trustees" entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions that they believe are in the best interest of the public, even if those decisions may not align with the specific preferences of their constituents. Trustee representatives consider numerous factors, including their own values, expertise, and the long-term interests of the community, rather than simply following the wishes of their constituents. Edmund Burke, an 18th- century British philosopher and politician, described his view of the trustee model in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774, offering that "your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." This reflected Burke’s belief that a representative's duty is not just to the voters who elected them, but to the country as a whole, and to future generations who would have to live with actions taken by current leaders. This meant that officials might sometimes need to make unpopular decisions in the short term if they are in the long-term interest of the nation. The politico model of representation seeks to strike a balance between the trustee and instructed delegate models. Elected officials who adopt the politico approach may act as trustees on certain issues where they possess expertise or where the public interest may require independent judgment. However, they may also act as instructed delegates on other issues where the preferences of their constituents are clear and strongly held. In essence, politico representatives aim to blend the principles of trustee and instructed delegate representation depending on the specific circumstances and demands of the situation. 6  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby IV The US House of Representatives Learning Outcomes o Identify the constitutional qualifications for being a member of the US House of Representatives. o Explain the membership total and apportionment of the US House of Representatives. o Explain the distinct types, role, and composition of the committees in the US House of Representatives. o Identify special responsibilities and powers of the US House of Representatives. By constitutional rule, a Representative in the US House must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for seven years, and, when elected, be a resident of the state in which the Representative is chosen. Although it is a practical necessity, a Representative is not required by the Constitution to reside in the district that he or she represents. There are 435 members in the House. Each state must have at least one. The number of House seats in each state will often be quite different, reflecting the Constitution’s requirement of apportionment of seats by population totals for each state. Every decennial (ten years) the United States has a census. Two years after the 2020 census the U.S. House seats are reapportioned according to population shifts. Florida, for example, had 19 House seats from 1983 to 1992. From 1993 to 2002 Florida had 23 House seats. From 2003 to 2012 Florida had 25 seats in the House of Representatives. From 2012 to 2022 Florida had 27 seats in the House. Now, Florida will have 28 seats until 2032 (the next census will be done in 2030). Florida’s population growth is increasing the state’s clout in the U.S House and, as a result, in the lawmaking process. If the number of House seats for each state changes over time, and we can assume every ten years we will see some interesting changes for our own home state of Florida, the existing lines of the districts that elect house members will have to change as well. The process of redrawing the district lines in each state is called redistricting, and each state government will be tasked with the process of correcting district lines according to population changes. Again, using Florida as an example, the trend is clear. Every ten years in the post- WWII era has brought massive changes to Florida’s population. Consider the following US House district maps from the current district lines and those that were drawn only twenty years ago: Map of Florida’s US House of Representatives districts in 2004 and 2022. As you can see, much of the map changed based on the need to redraw district lines to reflect the growing population total as well as the reapportionment changing to add more seats to Florida. When the state 7  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby redraws the district lines, it must follow at least a few constitutionally grounded rules or else its lines will be challenged in federal court. First, the lines must be drawn in accordance with the “one person, one vote” rule – the districts created must have roughly equal population to each other. If a district is not equal in population to other districts it will be labeled a “malapportioned” district and the state will need to redraw the lines again to follow the legal rule. The second requirement is that all district lines must be “contiguously drawn” so that there are no breaks in the lines for the district (except in cases of islands, waterways, or other geographical features). If you look over the map of Florida’s districts, for example, you will see that all lines are contiguous and there are no wide separations or gaps (except in the Keys) between district lines. Since states will oversee the redistricting phase of the apportionment process, there is a chance of gerrymandering some of the districts. Gerrymandering involves the drawing of district lines in order to favor one party over another, usually taking place when a state’s legislature (it is typical for a state’s legislature to draw the lines) is overwhelmingly in the hands of one political party than another. Currently, gerrymandering by party is not seen by the federal courts as unconstitutional. The courts have, however, ruled in several cases that gerrymandering that puts race as the primary factor in the drawing of district lines is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. As a result, those districts have been ordered to be redrawn. Congresspersons must maintain two residences, one in their home district and one near Washington D.C. The nation's capital and its suburbs are often expensive places to live. All Representatives are elected for a two-year term. There is no limit to the number of terms that a member of the U.S. House of Representatives can serve. Congress and its Original Foundations The House was created to be a democratic body. It was the only part of the original government created by the Constitution that was directly elected by the people in their respective states. It was designed to be close to the people; to express the different wishes of majorities in districts throughout the country. At the beginning of this country House seats were not coveted because the House had little power and the salaries were relatively low. Today, however, U.S. Representatives and Senators are usually career politicians. Once they get elected, they are difficult to remove because of many factors, not the least of which is the ability to raise money and the fact that Congressional districts are usually strongly Democratic or Republican due to gerrymandering. Usually over 90% of incumbents win re-election. Before a bill can become law it must pass both the House and the Senate in exactly the same form. Each house debates bills separately in their own standing committees. Very often a bill will pass both houses but be different in some parts. A conference committee will need to be created for each bill that is different in some way. Each house selects members to the conference committee and the delegation of each house has equal power. As in all formal committees of Congress, the majority party will have a majority of members on conference committees and therefore have a determining influence on the bill's final outcome. The task of all conference committees is to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. Once the conference committee has reconciled the bill it is then sent back to the House and Senate for a final vote. No amendments are permitted. While it is true that the US House and US Senate equally participate in the lawmaking process, each chamber is given special roles and responsibilities by the Constitution. The House elects the President of the United States in the event that the Electoral College does not have a majority for any candidate. If the election goes 8  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby to the House each state has one vote. This did not occur in the 20th Century and occurred only twice in the Nineteenth Century when the House selected Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams. The House initiates or begins all revenue or tax bills. This special power was given to the House because the Founding Fathers felt that the people should have a direct say on the taxes they pay. This was one of the reasons that the colonies went to war with Great Britain--they felt they were being taxed and yet had no representation in the British parliament. “No taxation without representation” was one of the rally cries used by the colonists. However, this is not a major power because any tax bill must pass in the same form in both houses. Thus, the Senate has, in reality, much the same powers as the House on tax legislation--but all tax bills must begin in the House. The House can impeach, by a majority vote, the president, the vice president, any federal judge and possibly others in the executive branch. Please note that "impeach" essentially means to indict or hold over for trial. The actual trial and possible removal from office occurs only in the Senate. V The US Senate Learning Outcomes o Identify the constitutional qualifications for being a member of the US Senate. o Explain the membership total and apportionment of the US Senate. o Explain the various types, role, and composition of the committees in the US Senate. o Identify special responsibilities and powers of the US Senate. A Senator must be at least 30 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States for nine years, and, when elected, be a resident of the state for which the Senator is chosen. There are 100 US Senators, two for each state. They have the same salary as House members ($174,00 in 2024). Each Senator has a six-year term. The terms in the Senate are varied or staggered so that every two years about one-third of the Senate seats are up for election. There is no limitation to the number of terms that a Senator can serve. The major purpose of the Senate is to represent States as political entities and to represent them equally. Of course, the word "states" includes the people of each state as well as the state government and all property and life forms in that state. The Filibuster A significant difference between the lawmaking process in the US House and Senate is the filibuster. A filibuster is an attempt to use the Senate’s special rules of unlimited time for debate to delay a vote on a bill. Senators, unlike House members, must be allowed as much time as they would like to speak to the body about any pending vote on a bill. The filibuster has long been used by the minority party in the Senate to stop legislation it dislikes. Ideally, the filibuster is a measure that protects the minority viewpoint in the Senate by halting legislation and giving each party to an issue a chance to re-engage in the political process of passing a bill. The history of the filibuster, however, has not always reflected its positive use by lawmakers. 9  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby The filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution but has a history of evolving out of the Senate's rules of debate. The origin of the tactic dates to 1806, when Vice President Aaron Burr recommended that the Senate allow a simple majority to cut off debate. This change gave senators unlimited time to speak on an issue, effectively creating the possibility of the filibuster. Common use of the filibuster did not occur, however, until the mid-19th century when it began to be used strategically to delay or block legislation. The most notable instance of filibustering was in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. This bill aimed to ensure African Americans the right to vote, but southern senators from the Democratic Party, led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes Senator Strom Thurmond of against the bill. The bill eventually passed in a weakened form. Thurmond's South Carolina. filibuster was not a rare act during the civil rights struggle, as Democrats in the Senate routinely used the filibuster as a means for blocking or weakening legislation aimed at equal opportunity for African Americans. The Power of Advice and Consent While each chamber of Congress is said to be equal due to their ability to create and pass bills into law, it should be noted that the Senate has special powers that are quite significant. These powers make the Senate the more powerful of the two houses of Congress. Assigning powers distinct from those exercised by the House of Representatives was something that was demanded by the smaller states during the Constitutional Convention. They created two houses, but they made sure that the Senate, where the small states have equal power, was the most powerful. Perhaps chief among these senatorial powers is the power of advice and consent for all executive appointments. In this capacity, the Senate has the power to vote on whether to approve or disapprove of presidential nominees for federal positions. A strict reading of the Constitution tells us that the vote to confirm (approve) any presidential nominee is done by a simple majority vote (at least 50% + 1). As with most actions taken by the government, getting to a simple majority isn’t such an easy procedure. Among the most important positions that the Senate must approve are: All federal judges. All Cabinet positions (Secretaries of Defense, State, Attorney General etc.) Most top executives to other major executive agencies such as the director of the FBI the director of the CIA, Home Security, and many others. All US ambassadors. All military commissions. In recent years, the most publicity regarding the Senate’s advice and consent power has centered on the approval of federal judges, especially Supreme Court judges. Due to this important aspect of stocking the federal judiciary with judges, both of the two major political parties in Congress have made it a priority to appeal to certain single-issue groups that lobby for hot button political issues such as abortion, gun ownership, and affirmative action for minority groups. This creates an often-difficult atmosphere in the process of approving judgeships as the political parties will often make their decisions based on specific views regarding controversial topics rather than the appointee’s legal training or public record. In 2006, 2007 and early 2008 the Democratic-controlled Senate clashed often with Bush nominees. In the summer of 2009, the Senate approved Barack Obama's nominee, Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court judge. All Democrats voted in favor of her nomination; all but nine Republicans voted against. In 2010 the Senate approved Elena Kagan 10  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby to the Supreme Court by a largely party-line vote. The process of confirmation reached a particularly contentious level in 2016, when Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. The majority Republican Senate refused to hold both hearings as well as a vote for Merrick’s nomination. Democrats, crying foul, would soon get their chance at reminding Republicans that the power to block nominees goes both ways. In 2017, Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Democrats in the Senate threatened a filibuster in order to block his confirmation. Faced with the prospect of a filibuster that could block Gorsuch's confirmation, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans decided to extend the so-called nuclear option to include Supreme Court nominations. The nuclear option, first invoked by Democrats in 2013 when Republicans blocked a series of nominations for federal judgeships during the Obama administration, suspended the cloture vote and reduced the number of votes needed to confirm a nomination to a simple majority of more than fifty percent (50%+1). The option was not extended to nominees to the US Supreme Court but, in April 2017, Republicans voted to change the Senate rules so that a filibuster could no longer be used to block Supreme Court nominees. This change meant that only a simple majority of 51 votes was needed to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, removing the 60-vote threshold. Ultimately, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch to the Court by a 54 - 45 vote with all Republicans and only three Democrats voting for Gorsuch’s placement. The immediate effect of the rule change was that Gorsuch was confirmed by a simple majority (54-45), without needing Democratic Party support. In the future, the elimination of the filibuster will make it easier for a president's party to confirm their Supreme Court nominees, even if they control the Senate by a slim margin. Confirmation of presidential appointments are usually not so explosive. About 4 thousand executive positions must be approved by the Senate in each two-year term. Although Supreme Court nominations are rare, dozens of federal judges are approved each year. The Senate routinely approves most presidential nominees. The power to advise and consent the executive on his actions extends not just to presidential appointments but to foreign policy as the Senate must approve all treaties made by the executive with foreign governments by a two-thirds margin. This was intended to be a major power by the Founding Fathers. The conflict between the northern and southern states was one of the reasons that this power was given to the Senate, where the southern states had power disproportionate to their population. At times, the Senate has had excellent debate regarding potential treaties and in the past President Donald Trump with Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch at the this power was significant. In late 2010 the Senate White House. voted to approve the START treaty-- the latest nuclear arms treaty with Russia. This treaty will reduce the number of strategic (long-range) nuclear warheads held by both countries and will allow both countries to inspect any site in either country that may have these warheads. In 2018, the Senate debated and voted to approve the USMCA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. This trade agreement updated older free trade rules between the three countries and addressed such important topics as environmental protections and online commerce activity. However, the President has gotten around sending treaties to the Senate. The Constitution says that the Senate must approve all treaties, but it does not define what a treaty is. What has happened is that if presidents do not feel they can get a two-thirds majority in the Senate, they call it an “agreement.” An “agreement” only needs a majority vote of each house of Congress to pass. If Congress (House and Senate) is 11  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby controlled by the President's party, then the likelihood is that it will be called an “agreement” and passed by Congress. Senatorial Power During Impeachments The Senate tries and either acquits or convicts and removes from office all officials who are impeached by the House. Conviction and removal from office requires a two-thirds majority. As mentioned previously, impeachment and convictions are rare. Only thirteen federal judges have been impeached since the Constitution was passed and only seven were removed from office. Only three U.S. presidents (A. Johnson, W. Clinton, and D. Trump) have been impeached, but none was convicted in the Senate. VI How a Bill Becomes a Law Learning Outcomes o Identify the steps of how a bill becomes a law in the US House of Representatives. o Identify the steps of how a bill becomes a law in the US Senate. o Explain the role of the committees in the process of how a bill becomes a law in the US Congress. o Explain the powers of the presidency in the lawmaking process. o Explain the role of riders and pork in the lawmaking process. Of all its functions, the most important role Congress plays is in passing federal laws. In the long run this is probably the most important function of government. In areas where the federal government is supreme, such as the control of interstate commerce, the control of the money supply and crimes that are committed against federal officials and property or across state lines, Congress has the ultimate authority to draft laws. A law is essentially a determination of what is right and what is wrong. Congress was designed to have this power, but some of law-making power has been assumed by the Supreme Court and the president has some law-making powers by having a great deal of leeway in interpreting what laws mean in specific instances where either the Constitution or prior legislation is unclear. Introduction of a Bill For a bill to become law, it must be introduced into one or both houses of Congress. Only US House Representatives can introduce a bill into the House and only Senators can introduce a bill into the Senate. If a bill starts in the House (remember that all taxation or “money” bills must originate in the House), it will need a member of the Senate to introduce into their own chamber and vice versa for bills that start in the Senate. This is normally a very easy obstacle to overcome due to each chamber being full of political party members who work together to move bills through without much resistance. Once a bill is introduced it will be moved on to the committee system in each respective chamber. Most bills will be sent to a standing committee that deals with the proposed legislation’s subject matter. Committees in the Lawmaking Process To work efficiently Congress has broken itself up into specialized units called standing committees. These committees are named for areas of typical law making such as Agriculture; Appropriations; Armed Services; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Environment and Public Works; Finance; and Foreign Relations. They are called "standing" 12  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby because they exist and work year-round. They have large professional staffs, permanent office space and a great deal of equipment to assist them. When a new Senator arrives to serve the first year of his or her term, he or she is assigned to three standing committees. House members are assigned to one or two. They normally will serve on these committees and only these committees for the entire time they are in Congress. After serving on these committees for a few years they will begin to develop some expertise in the subject area of the committees. This expertise allows Congress to view many different bills at the same time and to do so with a group of Congresspersons who are specialists in the subject matter of the bill. There are 16 standing committees in the Senate and 19 in the House. Each of these committees has several subcommittees that are further specialized. It is in these committees and subcommittees that Congress does most of its work, including its major responsibility, making laws. It is because of the standing committees, and their sub-committees, that Congress is so susceptible to influence by special interest groups. Special interest groups do not need to control Congress; they don't need to pay attention to the vast majority of what Congress does. If they can influence two standing committees (one in the House and one in the Senate) and then two subcommittees, they can prevent legislation that is against their interests from passing. They can often get legislation passed that favors only them and is not in the public interest. The public needs to be Members of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services holding a hearing concerned about every bill that goes through and interview of a witness. Congress, but the public interest is diluted or diffuse whereas special interests are focused, concentrated on the particular committees that have power over their interests. For example, the sugar industry is accused by many as being responsible for legislation that has made the price of sugar in the United States around twice the international price; the same is said for peanuts, honey, and many other products. For the typical consumer, these extra prices are minimal. How much time and money would you be willing to expend to save yourself $1.50 a month on sugar or 50 cents for peanut butter? To the sugar and peanut interests this means hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits. They are clearly willing to spend millions to keep laws in place that keep these prices high. For individual voters and consumers, it isn't worth the time and effort necessary to first become informed about these issues and secondly do something about them. This is the problem called rational ignorance. It is “rational” or sensible to not spend valuable time informing oneself about these issues, because even if the policies were changed everyone would benefit little and one would need to spend time not only becoming informed but also in trying to get the government to change these policies. In other words, from the consumer and average voter's point of view, why spend so much time and energy trying to change something that does not affect them that much anyway? From the point of view of special interests, the opposite is true. A change in government policy will affect them greatly as individuals or groups. To protect hundreds of millions of dollars in profits the sugar, peanut, citrus and other agricultural interests will spend time finding out how to influence the government and they will spend a great deal of money on campaign contributions 13  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby and advertising campaigns. The same is true for other special interests like the petroleum, banking, and restaurant businesses. And then there is the mother of all special interest groups--military contractors. The connections between committee members and special interests are often very powerful. For example, a Congressperson from an agricultural district in Ohio or Indiana will often try to get on the Agriculture Committee in the House when they first meet in Washington. Once on the committee they try to get on the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Members. From this position he or she can influence legislation to help farmers in his or her district. When farmers and farming-related industries from these districts and around the nation see that their congressperson is helping them they begin to send them large campaign contributions. They set up offices, warehouses, distribution sites, and processing plants in his districts. After a while, every vote that he or she makes in favor of agriculture is creating more jobs in his district, pleasing more voters, and getting him more campaign contributions. After some years, he will have so much money and support that he will be almost impossible to defeat in an election. The result of this process, however, is that the U.S. public ends up spending more for food products or finds that more of their tax dollars go to buying such things as electric power lines, roads, fertilizers, and farm equipment for farmers. The last estimate this author saw said that the U.S. government spends around thirty billion dollars a year supporting agriculture. What works for agriculture works for other special interests as well. Almost every major economic interest in the country has obtained special favors from the government. Ever wonder why the government for years decided that banks could not compete for customers by offering higher interest rates on savings accounts? Why is it that if you want to grow peanuts you have to obtain a license from the federal government? Why can't we import more citrus from Central America? Why did the oil industry have half of their profits exempted for years from corporate profits taxes? Why can’t bartenders and servers get special tax breaks? Why is it that the income that one makes selling a business is often taxed less than the wages of many workers? Why? The answer is… regulatory and tax policies created in Congress. All the above has been achieved through legislation passed through Congress. It costs consumers and taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Riders and Pork in the Lawmaking Process A common aspect of lawmaking in both the House and Senate is the application of riders and pork to various bills. A "rider" refers to an additional provision or amendment added to a bill that often has little or no relation to the bill's main subject. Riders are typically attached to larger, more important bills that are likely to pass to ensure that the rider itself is approved without undergoing the same scrutiny as a standalone piece of legislation. Riders are typically introduced as amendments to bills while they are debated in committee or as they are being considered for a vote in each chamber. Any member of each chamber can add a rider to a bill but members on committees often have the most immediate access to applying riders to bills being reviewed in a committee. Riders are controversial because they are very often placed into important pieces of legislation to secure their passage into law. For example, a bill authorizing emergency spending due to a natural disaster is likely to feature riders because few, if any, lawmakers would have the courage to vote against money used for helping victims of a hurricane, earthquake, or some other catastrophic event. One class of rider is called “pork barrel” legislation. Pork, as it is often referred, features spending or benefits for a specific district or interest, often to gain favor with certain voters or groups. Pork is cited by many 14  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby critics of federal spending due to its targeted nature and, much like other riders, pork is rarely related to the subject matter of legislation to which it is attached. The term "pork barrel politics" comes from the practice of southern politicians in earlier days sitting around a pork barrel in the old country store making deals to help their districts. The term also relates well with the phrase "bringing home the bacon." Those of you in the Central Florida area might have wondered about I-4, the road that really made Central Florida accessible. The "I" stands for "Interstate." What two states does I-4 connect? Why did Orlando get a navy base when we are 100 miles from the nearest ocean? Why are there so many military bases in the South? Part of the answer to all these questions is pork. Congresspersons in powerful committees are in position to bring home special federal favors to their districts. It is almost impossible to avoid seeking pork if you are a Congressperson. If you don't fight for it, other Congresspersons will, and your district will get less from the federal government. And clearly, the more pork one brings home, the better chance one has of being reelected. All standing committees in Congress have some pork to ladle out. There are four committees in Congress, however, which have huge potential for pork. The Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate must approve all the spending of the federal government. This will be about 3 trillion dollars a year in 2009. A lot of pork can be hidden in bills that have over a hundred different sections and thousands of different items. Bob Livingston, who was the ex- Speaker of the House, was the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee before he ran for the Speaker position. The last election he ran unopposed but received over a million dollars from special interest groups. He gave Boston’s Big Dig project, a massive rerouting of interstate traffic in most of that money to Republicans who were in close downtown Boston, has often been cited as a prime example of pork fights for their seats. It clearly helped Livingston when he barrel spending in Congress. sought votes from Republicans. The two other committees that are typically associated with pork are the tax committees. In the House it is the Ways and Means Committee (they figure out ways and means to get money out of our pockets), and in the Senate it is the Finance Committee. These committees determine who pays how much-- and who doesn't pay. The U.S. tax code is thousands of pages long so you might imagine the complexity of the work done by the members of each committee. You may also not be surprised that there is a lot of opportunity for placing pork into such a large code. Other Committees of Congress While the standing committees in Congress do most of the heavy lifting each session, there are other important committees that also do vital tasks that contribute to Congress’ representation function. 15  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby Select Committees Select committees are created to temporarily address or investigate specific issues for a limited period. They can be created in both the House and Senate and are typically shut down once they finish their work and issue a report to the American public. A current example of a select committee in Congress is the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This committee, created in 2023, focuses on the CCP’s influence in areas like trade, national security, technology, and human rights. The committee offers policy recommendations to both Congress and the president in order to counter the CCP’s attempts to undermine American economic and military power both internally and externally throughout the Asian-Pacific region. Joint Committees A joint committee in Congress is a legislative committee composed of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate. It serves as a collaborative body that addresses issues or tasks that concern both chambers of Congress, facilitating coordination between the two. The most important type of joint committee is the conference committee. A conference committee streamlines collaboration between the House and Senate as they attempt to combine each chamber's version of legislation into a single bill fit for final passage and submission to the president. The Conference committee isn’t the only type of joint committee in Congress, but it is a fairly common of such a committee’s typical elements - an equal mixture of both Democrats and Republicans, work done on an issue that demands collaboration between chambers, and the need for a unified result that is presented either back to each chamber or to the American public. An example of a current joint committee in Congress that differs in its responsibilities than the conference action is the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). This committee consists of members from both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it plays a critical role in reviewing and advising on tax policy, estimating the financial impact of tax proposals, and providing nonpartisan expertise on revenue-related issues. It also works on preparing official revenue estimates for major tax bills, which helps inform debates on fiscal policy and the federal budget. The JCT is highly influential in shaping tax legislation and both the House and Senate’s ability to consider bills that may result in taxes borne by the American people. Debate and Voting If a bill moves through the committee process in each house of Congress, members will be given time for speaking time to debate the bill. In the House, the rules for the scheduling and time reserved for members to debate are set by the House Rules Committee. As a result, there is only a limited amount of time for each House member to speak for or against passage of the bill. In the Senate, the Majority Leader will control much of the scheduling of the debate on the bill. As mentioned previously, debate in the Senate is far more open and subject to a possible filibuster. To help avoid a filibuster, the leadership in the Senate will try to make sure enough senators are ready for actual debate rather than waste time on a filibuster. After the debate action, each chamber will separately take a vote on their own respective versions of the proposed legislation. Most bills only need a simple majority for passage. If each chamber produces a perfect copy of the other chamber’s bill, the approved bill is sent to the president for executive action. If two 16  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby different versions are approved (a House and Senate version), the two versions are sent to the Conference Committee so that the committee can iron out differences and produce a bill that combines elements of both chamber’s bills. Of course, any combination is technically a new version of the proposed legislation, so it must be sent back to each chamber for another round of debate and voting before moving on to the executive branch. As always, at any point in this process if the law isn’t passed by either chamber, it is dead and cannot move on to become a law. The President of the United States in the Lawmaking Process After the conference action, each chamber of Congress must vote to approve a final version of a bill. If approved by both chambers, the bill is sent to the executive branch for presidential action. The president must sign laws that Congress passes in order for them to go into effect. If he vetoes the bill, he attaches a veto message that explains his reasoning for blocking passage of the bill into law. Congress may override his veto by a two-thirds majority in each house. It is very difficult to get two-thirds of Congress to agree on anything, and even more difficult to convince members of the president's party to vote against the president. The veto is one of the most important parts of the check and balance system. It forces Congress to work with the president on most issues. It forces compromise. However, one must remember that the president cannot pass laws himself; only Congress has this power. In addition to signing or vetoing a bill, the president can also do nothing to the bill and leave it sitting on his desk. If nothing is done to a bill, there are two possible outcomes. The first is that the bill may still become law if, within ten days, the Congress has not ended its session. The second possibility is that the bill will die if, within ten days, the Congress ends its session. In this case the bill suffers a fate called a “pocket veto” and, because Congress ended its session, cannot be taken up for a possible override. Not signing a bill is rare, however, as presidents normally like to play an active role in the lawmaking President Ronald Reagan signing the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 process. and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 at his Santa Barbara, California ranch, Rancho del Cielo, 13 August 1981. Photograph by official White House photographer, Karl Schumacher. VII Oversight Learning Outcomes o Explain the role of Congressional oversight power. o Explain the role of various agencies and committees in the oversight function. Congress has an oversight function. It is supposed to monitor the executive branch especially to see that the laws it has passed are being conducted as they were intended and that the budget it has approved is being spent as Congress intended. It has created an agency, The General Accountability Office (GAO) whose job is specifically to conduct this oversight function. The GAO often irritates the executive branch because its job is essentially to check on it. It oversees the implementation of the U.S. budget and often makes predictions (especially of future federal deficits) that are not in line with what the president and his administration have made. The leadership of the GAO is accountable to the leaders of Congress; however, it is an agency that is 17  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby supposed to be non-partisan, that is, it should not make findings based on politics. It should and usually does act independently of both political parties as well as the president. Congress can also call members of the executive branch to appear before its committees to explain how they are spending money that Congress has appropriated and to see if they are acting within the scope of powers that Congress gave them. In 2007 Alberto Gonzalez, George W. Bush's Attorney General, was called before the Democrat-controlled House and Senate Judiciary Committees and required to explain the firing of nine U.S. Attorney in 2006. In 2012, the House Intelligence Committee, with a Republican majority, called up several members of the Obama administration to explain the killing of the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya. It was clear that committee members were looking to find answers regarding what the administration did and did not do to prevent what happened and in the subsequent reporting to Congress and to the public. Other cabinet members and high-ranking executive officials are often called to appear before Senate or House committees. In 2019, Trump administration officials were called to testify before a congressional committee during a House impeachment inquiry. The investigation centered on allegations that President Trump had pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, by withholding military aid to Ukraine. The inquiry led to multiple officials being subpoenaed and questioned. While several committees in Congress conduct oversight, there are a few with considerable power to check on the activities of the executive and judicial branches. Among the most prominent committees are: House Committee on Oversight and Accountability – This is the main investigative committee in the House of Representatives. It investigates any issue within its regarding executive branch conduct, including ethics, financial dealings, and compliance with federal laws. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs – This committee reviews cybersecurity, immigration, and other areas within its jurisdiction. House and Senate Judiciary Committees – Both committees are responsible for legal matters, including civil liberties and constitutional questions. They play a role in interviewing presidential appointments to the judiciary. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – These committees oversee U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, NSA, and FBI's intelligence functions. House and Senate Foreign Affairs/Relations Committees – These committees monitor the president’s foreign policy decisions and oversee the State Department and other foreign relations aspects. Appropriations Committees in both chambers – These committees are responsible for federal spending, oversight by controlling the budget, and funding for all federal agencies. House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee – These committees are responsible for tax legislation and oversight of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is not likely, given the nature of American politics and the checks and balances system, that a presidential administration will escape the pressures of oversight and Congress’s committee system. That’s not necessarily a bad thing as oversight helps to keep the American system within the bounds of a limited government provided by the Constitution. 18  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby VIII Impeachments Learning Outcomes o Identify the constitutionally valid reasons for impeachment. o Identify the steps of how impeachment and removal take place in the Congress. o Explain the role of key actors and committees in the impeachment process. A final power of Congress that must be mentioned is the power of impeachment. Congress can impeach and remove any federal judge, the president, vice president and cabinet officials, although a cabinet official has never been impeached. Impeachments begin in the U.S. House of Representatives within investigation by a committee, often the House Judiciary Committee, to determine if there are grounds for impeaching a federal official. Constitutionally, impeachments are to be undertaken for allegations of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." If evidence supports impeachment, the committee drafts articles of impeachment, which outline specific charges against the official. These articles are then debated and voted on by the full House; if a simple majority approves any article, the official is impeached, or formally charged. The process then moves to the Senate, where a trial is held, with senators acting as jurors and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding if it involves the president. Each side presents evidence, witnesses may be called, and senators deliberate in private. Conviction and removal from office require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. If convicted, the official is removed and may be disqualified from holding future office, but criminal prosecution may be pursued separately as a conviction by the Senate only applies to an official's ability to remain in office. Any criminal activity related to their actions in office are a matter for government attorneys and the court system to decide. Three U.S. presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in two separate impeachments in 2019 and 2021. None of the four impeachments resulted in a removal from office by the Senate. Andrew Johnson, the successor of Abraham Lincoln and a southerner, was impeached by the House of Representatives, however, the Senate failed by one vote to reach the two- thirds necessary to remove him. The votes to remove Bill Clinton and Donald Trump in the U.S. Senate came nowhere close to the two-thirds majority and, as a result, both men completed their terms of office. Trump was impeached twice, once while currently in office and again on different grounds after he left office in January 2021. Despite his leaving the presidency, he was still impeached for his role in the January 6, 2021, riots at the US Capitol on the legal theory that a post-presidency conviction in the Senate would bar any possibility of a second Trump presidency. Much like the outcome to his first impeachment, the Senate failed to find enough votes to convict Trump. 19  Keeping The Republic V 1.0 | Crosby On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. They intended to wiretap phones and steal documents as part of efforts to gather intelligence on President Richard M. Nixon's political opponents during his re-election campaign. Though initially downplayed, investigations revealed connections between the burglars and the Nixon administration, implicating members of Nixon's staff in attempts to cover up the incident. While many Americans often mistakenly apply the impeachment process to President Nixon, for his role in the Watergate scandal, as the House Judiciary Committee had voted to impeach Richard Nixon before he resigned from office. Nixon, after advisers informed him that the full House would pass multiple articles of impeachment, resigned rather than be disgraced by the entire impeachment and removal process. There was a great probability that Nixon would have been removed from office if he Richard Nixon boarding Army One upon his had not resigned his office. departure from the White House after resigning the office of President of the United States following the Watergate Scandal in 1974. 20