Congressional Committees in a Continuing Partisan Era PDF

# Congressional Committees in a Continuing Partisan Era ## John H. Aldrich and David W. Rohde The essay describes the theory of conditional party government: - A cohesive party empowers its leadership to play a central role in policymaking. - Cohesive majority parties have directed the actions of...

# Congressional Committees in a Continuing Partisan Era ## John H. Aldrich and David W. Rohde The essay describes the theory of conditional party government: - A cohesive party empowers its leadership to play a central role in policymaking. - Cohesive majority parties have directed the actions of standing committees and assumed a direct role in designing legislation. ## The Two Principal Organizing Structures of Congress The two principal organizing structures of Congress are the political parties and the committee system. - **1890 to 1910**: The majority party dominated the House of Representatives, with the Speaker empowered to appoint committees, their chairs, and to control the legislative agenda. - **After 1910**: Power shifted to committees, whose leaders were selected based on seniority. - **1920s to 1970s**: The era of committee government, where party influence was relatively weak. - **Reform period in the 1970s**: Institutional changes were adopted that strengthened parties and weakened the sway of committees and their chairs. - **Increase in partisan conflict in Congress**: The importance of party power has increased in Congress. **Congress members have not abandoned the committee system.** However, the shifting balance of power reflects the degree of autonomy of the committees and their chairs from their legislative party organizations. ## Transformation of the Party-Committee Balance This chapter discusses the transformation of the party-committee balance from the 1970s to the present: - **House focus**: But also considers the Senate. - **Democratic Party reforms of the 1970s**: Launched the transformation of the party-committee balance. - **Application of new party powers**: The Democrats used the reforms to increase party influence through the committee system. - **Republican control**: The Republicans won control of both houses in the 1994 elections. ## Additional Institutional Changes Made by the GOP - The parties and the committee system interacted to achieve the GOP's legislative goals. - The return of the Democratic majority after the 2006 elections gave a single but important session to examine the party-committee balance under new party and committee leadership. ## The Committee System and the Era of Committee Government - Committees are designed to serve the interests of the chamber and its members. - Committees divide labor. - Committees encourage the development of expertise through members' specialization. - Committees provide benefits for individual members by enabling them to: - Identify themselves with issues important to constituents. - Secure benefits for their districts. - Achieve power within the chamber. - Influence public policy within their jurisdictions. ## Congress Used Committees to Conduct Business Early On - Standing committees were widely used by the 1820s. - Committees developed expertise and the chamber began to defer to their judgments on legislative policy. - Throughout the 1800s, the influence of the majority party leadership over committees grew. **After the revolt against Cannon in 1910, the Speaker could no longer appoint committees and each party developed its own procedures.** ## Committee Service Became Largely Independent From Party Influence - **Committee Chairs were chosen and maintained by seniority.** - They had no particular incentive to be responsive to the wishes of their party or its leaders. - **Committee chairs shaped their committees' agendas.** - **Committee chairs appointed subcommittees.** - **Committee chairs decided when hearings would be held and how bills would be handled.** - **Conservative Southerners often allied with Republicans to block or alter Democratic legislation.** ## Party Reform: Gateway to the Partisan Era - **Initial Attempts at Reform**: Included a successful effort in 1961 to expand the Rules Committee to reduce the influence of southern conservatives. - **Legislative Reorganization Act in 1970**: The Act contained important features such as: - Public roll call votes on committees. - Public attendance of committee meetings. - Easier acquisition of recorded votes on amendments on the House floor. - The stage for electronic voting, which speeded up floor voting. - These changes shifted the locus of legislative decision making from the committees to the floor. **However, the Act took no action to revise the seniority system or to reduce the powers of committee chairs.** - **Conservative coalition was able to block any such actions that would have undermined their institutional position.** - **Changes in the makeup of the House**: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 enfranchised black voters in the South, and their strong tilt to the Democratic Party was liberalizing the party's voter base there. - **Conservative voters no longer saw the Democrats as standing for their interests.** - **As a consequence of these developments, new Southern Democrats were becoming more like their Northern colleagues** ## Democratic Membership in Congress Was Becoming Less Divided and More Homogeneous - This set the stage for efforts to strengthen the majority party leadership relative to the committee system. - Members became more unified in their preferences. - It became safer to grant leaders stronger powers. **This relationship is the essence of the theoretical perspective labeled "conditional party government" (CPG).** - If the legislators in a party have heterogeneous policy preferences, they will not be likely to grant strong powers to their leadership. - As policy preferences become more homogeneous, members will be increasingly more likely to empower the party leaders because they will have less reason to fear the use of those powers. ## The Early 1970s - Liberal Democrats Were a Clear Majority of the House Democratic Caucus - But not of the entire House membership. - They could not muster a majority on the floor for the kinds of reforms they favored. - The liberals targeted the rules of the Democratic caucus instead. - **Two Tracks of Strategy:** 1. **Undermining the independence and power of committee leaders**: By seeking to end the automatic nature of the seniority system. 2. **Strengthening the party leadership**: By appointing a Steering and Policy Committee, most of whose members were appointed by the Speaker. ## Partisanship Takes Hold: 1983-1994 - **The reforms were adopted by the mid-1970s.** - The initial effects were not widely apparent at first, but they were evident by the late 1980s. - **Ronald Reagan's success in 1981**: Reagan split off southern Democrats to support his budget and tax proposals. - **The recession in 1982**: Helped bring many moderate-to-liberal southerners to the House. - **The conservative coalition was no longer a majority of the House**: This gave more power to the Democrats and helped them to advance the party agenda. - **Reform Strategy Sought to Induce Committee Chairs to Refrain From Blocking Party Bills and to Support the Democratic Party's Legislative Program:** - Three southern Democrats were removed from committee chairmanships in 1975. - This put committee chairs on notice that they could not buck their party's policy wishes with impunity. ## Republican Rule and Its Consequences: 1994-2000 - **Republican confrontations with the Democratic majority continued into the 1990s.** - **The GOP was able to take advantage of the political context in 1994, successfully exploiting negative public feelings about government performance, the condition of the nation, and Clinton personally.** - **The Republicans won a majority control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the election of 1952.** - **Newt Gingrich was chosen as the new Speaker.** - **The party set out transform the operation of the chamber to set the stage for major changes in government policy.** ## Republican Procedural Changes - **Gingrich made it clear that he intended to depart from the seniority system in selecting committee chairs.** - He chose new chairs based on party loyalty and dependability, rather than seniority. - **Gingrich also changed the powers of committees and their chairs.** - Three committees were abolished outright, and most remaining committees were limited to five subcommittees. - The GOP leadership gave its chairs the right to appoint subcommittee chairs and control over committee staff. - **The Republicans adopted a six-year term limit for committee and subcommittee chairmen.** ## The Rules Changes Set the Stage For Greater Influence By Party Leaders Over the Activities and Legislative Products of Committees - **Example: The GOP leadership's involvement in the crafting of bills in committee.** - The most extensive instance of leadership influence on bill creation was the drafting and revision of the legislation designed to implement the Contract with America. ## Committees Had Less Independent Power & The Party Leadership Had More - **The Republicans did not adopt a wholesale realignment of committee jurisdictions.** - The existing pattern of jurisdictions had too many implications for the reelection, policy, and power goals of members. - **The Republicans were not willing to sacrifice their other interests that were served by the committee system.** ## Party Leaders and Committees - **Influencing Bill Creation in Committees**: The majority leadership was increasingly involved in the crafting of bills in committee during the 104th Congress (1995-1997). - **The most extensive instance of leadership influence on bill creation was the drafting and revision of the legislation designed to implement the Contract with America.** For example, the GOP leadership decided that school prayer would not be included. - **Committee Consideration Of These Predrafted Bills Was Largely Pro Forma**: The leadership's pledge was to pass them in the Congress's first hundred days. - **The Contract was of Central Importance**. But the leadership's involvement in committees' initial consideration of bills was not limited to that legislation. ## Bypassing Committees and Postcommittee Adjustments - **The Republican leadership simply bypassed committees altogether to achieve its policy and political goals.** - **Example: The GOP leadership bypassed the Judiciary Committee:** The leadership chose a bill to repeal the 1994 ban on assault weapons to go to the floor without committee consideration. - **Another device for bypassing committees was the use of leader-appointed party task forces.** - These task forces contained only Republicans, and at times they were used to secure a different policy outcome than the committee of jurisdiction preferred. - **The leadership could also use its control over the Rules Committee to make adjustments in the content of legislation after the committees had made their decisions.** - **GOP leaders frequently attacked the Democrats for writing rules that barred them from offering amendments.** - **In the 104th Congress, the Republicans demonstrated that they were prepared to do the same thing.** - **GOP leaders protested their treatment and undermined the Democratic majority.** ## Special Rules and Control of the Floor - **The majority party can use its powers to support and defend the decisions of committees or undermine them if committees have not produced a result the party wanted.** - **One way is through their general control of the floor agenda.** - **The GOP majority was prepared to use this power in the 104th Congress.** ## Not Everything Is Partisan - **Much of Congress's business does not involve party conflict.** - Only about one-third of the bills that are considered by Congress exhibit some conflict. ## Why Is There So Seldom Conflict On Legislation If Congress Has Become Ever More Partisan? - The agenda that Congress deals with is multifaceted and diverse. - Most legislation involves renewal of, or funding for, existing programs with wide support in the country or "take positions" and thereby enhance their chances for reelection. ## Committees Are Less Central To The Work Of The Senate Than Of The House - This is due to a number of institutional differences between the two chambers. - **The Senate Must Deal With Essentially The Same Legislative Jurisdiction With Less Than One-Fourth The Number Of Members.** - Senators are therefore spread more thinly and are less specialized. - **Senate Rules And Traditions Also Vest More Power In Individuals And Small Groups Than Those Of The House.** - The most familiar manifestation of this is the ability of a minority to block the passage of legislation through filibuster. - The Senate is not a "majoritarian" institution, in which the majority can work its will with even one more vote than the minority. - The Senate majority must usually pay attention to at least some minority views to achieve any results. ## The House Under Speakers Hastert And Pelosi - **CPG theory predicts that as the partisan division of the chambers is close, we expect conditional party government theory to continue to provide a good explanation for congressional organization and activity.** - **The data are unequivocal that the parties have polarized.** - The median positions of the parties on roll call measures have even been a bit farther apart during the last 10 years than they were in the 104th Congress. - **Research shows that the proportion of Congress that takes positions in the middle of the ideological spectrum is smaller than ever.** - **The underlying "condition" for CPG is still well satisfied.** ## Hastert's Speakership - **The selection of Dennis Hastert as Speaker provided a strong challenge for CPG theory.** - Hastert promised that regular procedures would be restored. - However, none of the significant authority granted to the Republican House leadership during Gingrich's tenure was rescinded. - Hastert sought and was granted additional power. - The GOP continued to use its tools to structure the floor agenda and actions taken after bills are passed. - They continued to use restrictive special rules to block the Democrats from offering many of their preferred amendments. ## Pelosi's Speakership - **The transition to Democratic rule after the elections of 2006 offered another opportunity to assess the predictions of CPG theory.** - The rules package for the 110th Congress confirmed the accuracy of that expectation. - Most of the leadership powers that the Democrats exercised the last time they were the majority were retained. - **CPG theory would also lead us to expect the vigorous exercise of leadership powers on behalf of the party's program in the new Congress.** - **The GOP minority has sought to use its limited capabilities to encourage solidarity among its members and to compete with the majority.** ## Conclusion - The theoretical account offered by CPG is as applicable in 2008 as it was in 1995. - Partisan policy disagreement is at least as strong and partisan conflict just as intense. - As long as the legislative parties remain ideologically heterogeneous, the partisan division of the chambers is close, and the majority party continues to use its institutional powers to the maximum, we expect conditional party government theory to continue to provide a good explanation for congressional organization and activity.