|
|
| Jonathan Karl | |
| Back to Assignments Page |
Module 3 - Chapter Ten
Congress: Politics on Capitol Hill
| Dye Textbook: Overview |
| Dye Textbook - online assignments There are three assignments for each chapter - check within WebCT and on the assignments page. Each assignment should be completed by Thursday at 7:30 p.m. each week. |
While Congress, as described by Dye, was the branch of government "given very broad powers" by the Constitution, it was also given "the most clearly specified role in national government."
Powers of Congress
When we look at these role (see table on p. 322), it is clear that the powers granted to the Congress encapsulate the vision of government agreed upon by the Founders. Thus there were powers dealing with:
The last point is of course the broadest – since it assumes that Congress as an evolving institution will have the wisdom to pass laws as the economy and society changes to accommodate these changes.
But as Dye also points out, during much of the 20th century, Congress has ceded leadership in national policy making to the president/executive branch.
The underlying question is trying to understand the role of Congress is to ask: are legislatures intrinsically bodies meant to be proactive, exert leadership, define problems and find solutions? Or, do such duties typically fall on the executive branch?
As you know, the Congress is quite distinct from a Parliamentary institution in the British sense. What that means is that Congress is not expected to act as a entity passively echoing the positions of the Prime Minister/President. As parties have grown weaker in the US, the ability of Presidents to hold his/her party colleagues to a party line defined by the President has diminished.
The many years in the post-WWII period during which a divided government has existed has made it even less likely that the Congress will operate as a passive tool of the executive; Clinton could not expect that the Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives would necessarily help him pass his legislative priorities on social security, education or health care. Bush enjoyed undivided government temporarily, but with the defection of James Jeffords, a Senator from Vermont, Democrats took over the majority in the Senate. The typical condition since the Second World War has been divided government. After the 2002 elections, a Republican majority was returned to the Senate, ensuring undivided government. (Click here for a list of current US Senators)
President Still Dominant Regarding Foreign Policy
During the Clinton presidency, the crisis in Kosovo in spring 1999 made it clear that the President does have a pretty free hand when it comes to foreign policy – the "commander-in-chief" idea is strongly etched in the US Constitution – both in its written and its practiced forms. Clinton's last minute efforts to establish a framework for peace in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians showed that a President even in the waning days of his Presidency can gain center stage and exert considerable foreign policy direction.
President George W. Bush has expanded the concept of presidential power by invoking the 'war on terrorism' to institute 'regime change' in Iraq, hold 'enemy combatants' in Guantanamo, and conduct eavesdropping on calls by 'terrorist suspects' to US phones without getting court approval.
Thus, while there is a strong predisposition for the Congress to set its own agenda or at least stall the President’s agenda on domestic issues, the same cannot be said for foreign policy.
Thinking again about how Kosovo and NATO/US involvement came about. The President announced a decision without necessarily waiting for Congressional approval. Indeed, the newly "dovish" Republicans were reluctant at first to agree with the President. Congress passed a resolution supporting Bush's inclination to go to war with Iraq "as a last resort."
However, whenever the President commits himself to a course of action, especially with the investment of war material and personnel, Congress always finds itself in the awkward position of being a purely reactive body. It does not want to display national disunity and thereby make it seem to an adversary that the country is divided. This would clearly play into the hands of the enemy – who, upon seizing a few soldiers, would expect support for the President’s foreign policy to crash, providing an opportunity to achieve goals that the President’s policy was meant to obstruct. Naturally, once troops are committed, the Congress again must not appear to undermine the morale and solidarity of the armed forces.
Domestic "Emergencies" are Less Frequent, More Amenable to Prolonged Debate
There are rarely equivalent emergencies on the domestic front. More typically, long-standing social and economic problems come up for legislative cures. Debate can go on endlessly – after all, most of these problems have lingered for a long time, we can always wait a bit longer before doing anything about them. The "enemy" is not a new-Hitler, but rather defined by Liberal or Conservative ideology: it might be the lack of personal responsibility, or the lack of job opportunities, or the permeation of drugs, etc., etc.
Congress can debate these issues for prolonged periods without the sense of urgency and crisis found in foreign policy. It can use its power of the purse to put resources into policies which might help alleviate certain problems. It might use its legislative "oversight" functions to investigate how well certain programs or departments within the executive branch are running. It might use its agenda-setting ability to focus the country’s attention on one set of issues over another.
Congress as an Institution
Congresspersons are elected in the states
Dye makes several points about how Congress as an institution come to be. Its members must of course be elected. This raises the obvious question: how many shall each state elect? This leads to the process of apportionment, allocating seats in the House of Representatives to states (obviously this problem does not exist for the Senate). Interestingly, while Congress decides how many seats to allot to each state, the state legislatures are charged with determining the Congressional districts. The 2000 census will require states to deal with any changes in national representation due to shifts (increases or decreases) in population.
Gerrymandering has been used over the decades by both parties to try to reshape districts to the advantage of the party in power. Thus, Democrats might want to create a very safe Republican seat, if it ensures the creation of several safe Democratic seats by clustering all Republican precincts into one district.
Redistricting is thus a very political process.
It is also a process which has involved race relations, particularly in states with large African-American populations. Efforts to create "black" Congressional districts have been partially successful, but also subject to Supreme Court challenges. Some redistricting has been thrown out, but the rule is still vague as to when a district is so obviously drawn to benefit a racial group that it results in such perverse geographic shapes as to render it unconstitutional.
We have already discussed "running for office" in some detail in previous chapters. Review that discussion in Dye as it refers to incumbent advantages, motives for running, open seats, campaigns/financing, etc. There is also a discussion of styles of operation – the use of staff, workload, casework, home-style – many of these seem appropriate for a multiple choice question or two…
Two Houses of Congress: Similarities and Differences
The organization of Congress is something that should be examined rather closely. The two Houses are not identical in this regard.
The key leadership figure in the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. Do you know the name of the current Speaker? (Click here for the Speaker's home page).
That person serves as both the presiding officer (the one who recognizes floor members for speeches, amendments, etc.) as well as the leader of the majority party.
Thus the Speaker is meant to be at once an enforcer of rule of parliamentary procedure and a partisan individual seeking to bend the rules in favor of his/her party. He/she will usually work closely with the majority whip (remember Tom DeLay?).
Look at the chart in Dye on p. 348. The bottom half of the chart shows how the House is organized. The speaker appears to sit between the majority and minority leaders, but this gives the illusion of neutrality.
The top half of the chart shows the Senate, with the presiding officer being the
president pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President, (that
is, most of the time). The Vice President's official title is "President
of the Senate" who can cast votes only to break ties.
Normally the president pro tempore is the keeper of the rules and decorum of the Senate.
But the partisan role performed by the Speaker of the House is performed by the Senate majority
leader (who prior to the 2002 elections was Senator
Tom Daschle)..
As the Senate is smaller than the House, the Senate majority leader is often more of a "consensus" maker rather than a strong leader. In the House, a nearly Parliamentary situation obtains, with the Speaker really twisting the arms of party colleagues on issues of importance to the leadership. In the Senate, the majority leader must beg and still not expect party members to
necessarily follow a party line.
Look over the discussion of the Congressional committee system in the textbook. Know how standing committees are distinct from select and joint committees. What is the role of the subcommittees? Seniority? How is committee membership determined? What is the role of the committee in getting legislature to the floor of the house? Can a committee ever be overridden by the house (i.e., role of a discharge petition…).
See the discussion of how Republican efforts in 1994-5 to change the committees by imposing a six year limit on chairmanships affected the 107st Congress in January 2001 - Read J. Karl interview at the end of this page.
Also note some of the floor traditions. What is a unanimous consent agreement? A filibuster, a cloture, or a rider?
Finally, how do house members act?
What has been happening to party unity as a motive for Congress members? Have there been patterns of bipartisanship? Can Presidents always expect their party colleagues in the legislative branch to support them? How will President Bush play on party vs. bipartisanship?
By the time you finish reading about all the possible motives, you may wonder how Congresspersons can bring themselves to vote at all!
Try going to the http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/
site for some national events. Local events are covered in several newspapers such
as the Annapolis Capital, the Baltimore Sun or the Washington Post.
-------------------------J. Karl Interview----------------------------------
|
||||
CNN Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl is reporting from Capitol Hill, where term limits on committee chairmanships forced longtime lawmakers to give up their powerful posts.
Q: What was the source for this Republican leadership shakeup of key committee positions?
KARL: We've had a major shakeup in the Republican leadership in the House, a fascinating story that is really the legacy of Newt Gingrich's Republican revolution of 1994.
Back then, when Republicans rode into power, they declared they would change the way Congress operates. One of the things they did was impose term limits on the real barons of the House, the most powerful people in the House. And that's the committee chairmanships. Those term limits are now up.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Now, all of the old guard who have chaired these committees were forced to relinquish their chairmanships, followed by a rather ferocious battle over who would succeed them.
One of the most interesting things that came out of this shakeup is that Henry Hyde, the conservative Republican hero of the impeachment battle, was forced to relinquish his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Hyde was forced to give it up, even though he pleaded with the leaders to let him stay and to grant him a waiver to exempt him from the term limits.
Then, Hyde had to battle to get another chairmanship, which he did get. He got a pretty significant consolation prize; he'll be the new chairman of the International Relations Committee. But he had to really fight for that.
That's what's interesting about this whole battle. First of all, you have all of the old guard forced out of these powerful positions, many of whom decided to leave Congress altogether. You had some of the biggest power brokers of the Republican Party just not run again -- people like Bill Archer, who had been the House Ways and Means Committee chairman; John Kasich, who had been House Budget Committee chairman.
Then, Bud Shuster, the controversial House Transportation Committee chairman and author of one of the biggest pork-barrel spending bills in the history of Congress, had to leave his chairman post. And on Thursday, he announced he is leaving Congress. He didn't cite the chairmanship issue; he cited health issues. But he's just the latest in a long line of big-time Republicans taking off.
Q: How were the new chairmanships chosen?
KARL: These guys had to do something that we have never seen in the history of the United States House of Representatives. They basically had to put on a dog-and-pony show and go through an interview process to try out for the chairmanships.
They had to make a presentation before a group of 27 Republicans on what they called the Steering Committee. To apply for a chairmanship, they had to come in and give a presentation. Some of them came in with slick folders and showed slide shows, proposals and business plans for what they would bring to these committees.
They had to apply for these jobs the way anybody else would apply for a job in the private sector. Some senior members objected to this process, saying it was humiliating.
In fact, one congressman, Thomas Petri, was considered for the favorite of the Education Committee chairmanship. He came in for his interview and basically said, 'I've been in Congress for more than 20 years. I don't see why I should have to go through this process.' And he offered no detailed proposal.
And not surprisingly, Thomas Petri didn't end up with the education chairmanship.
Q: Do the term limits extend to the House Speakership post, or are they confined to the committee chairmanships?
KARL: The term limits are six years, and in fact they do apply to the House Speaker. But they do not apply to the other House leadership posts like the majority leader. For instance, there's no term limit on Tom DeLay.
But it does apply to the House Speaker. So, if Newt Gingrich had somehow survived, this would have been the end of his speakership, because he would be entering his seventh year.
Of course, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is still getting under way and has another four years left before his time is up.
But it's really a fundamental change in the way Congress operates, because the old way was simply whoever had the most seniority took over as chairman. I think baron is the best way to describe them. They had their fiefdoms, and they served for chairman for years and years and years.
Henry Hyde is the only one who escaped somewhat unscathed, because he got another plum assignment.
But Henry Hyde made it clear that he is not somebody who would leave Congress, even over a matter like this. As a matter of fact, back in August, he did an interview with a Chicago radio station where he was asked if he would ever leave Congress.
Hyde said something like, "I imagine my last words of Congress will be, 'Sir, can you take your foot off my oxygen hose.'" So, he's made it clear that he would like to be the Strom Thurmond of the House. He never sees himself leaving as long as his health is good.
Q: Did Henry Hyde or any of the other Republican chairs object in 1994 to the term limits?
KARL: Nobody objected six years ago. This was a wonderful idea.
Of course, the Republicans were coming in. They hadn't been in power for 40 years. So, it was hard to even imagine six years down the road and what would happen when these guys would be forced to turn over their chairmanships. The term limits were really a gesture that was somewhat consistent with the rhetoric of the Gingrich revolution, which was, 'Let's change the way Congress operates.' They also gave chairmanships to people who deserved the posts, not just those in Congress with the most seniority.
Back then, it just seemed like a wonderful idea. Now, six years later, you see it had some unintended consequences. It forced a guy like Henry Hyde out of Judiciary and it also prompted a very bitter battle over who would take over.
And there are some wounds that are going to take a while to heal.
One of the biggest battles was over the ever-powerful Ways and Means chairmanship between Phil Krane and Bill Thomas. Krane has more seniority and was the favorite of the Republican leadership. But ultimately, Bill Thomas is now the new Ways and Means chairman.
Bill Thomas is considered somewhat of a moderate, but a very active Republican on central issues, especially Medicare reform. He is considered a hard worker, but also somewhat of a loose cannon who cannot be easily controlled by the House leadership. At the same time, he is one of the sharpest and most aggressive members of the House
