(-,111

($)SAGE COPRESS
Los AngelesI LondonI NewDelli
SingaporeIWash'ngtonDC

FOR INFORMATION
: Copyrig ht © 2013 by CQ Press, an i1nprint of SAGE
Publicatio ns, Inc. CQ Press is a registered trademar k of
COPre-5S Cong ressiona l Qua rterly Inc.
SAGEPublications,Inc.
2455TellerRoad
All righ ts reserved. No part of this book may be rep roduce d or
ThousandOaks.California 91320
ut ilized in any form o r by any mea ns, elect ron ic or mec han ical,
E-mail: order@sagep
ub.com
includi ng pho tocopy ing, record ing, or by any infon n at io n
SAGEPublicationsltd. storage an d retrieval systen1, witl1ou t pen n ission in writing
1 Oliver's Yard from the publ isher.
55 City Road
London EC1YISP
UnitedKingdom

SAGEPublicationsIndiaPvt.ltd.
8 1/11 MohanCooperativeIndustrialA,ea
Mathura Road, NewDelhi110044
Printed in the United States o f Amer ica.
India

Library of Congress Cataloging -in -Publ ication Data

SAGEPublicationsAsia-Pacific Pte. ltd.
3 Church Street
How Co ngress works . Fifth editi on.
#10-04 SamsungHub
Singapore049483
pages cn1

Includes b ibliographic al references and ind ex.

ISBN 978- 1-60871-9 1 l -2 (pbk. )

I. Un ited States. Co ngress. I. Congressional Quar terly, Inc.

JK1021.H69 2013
328.73- dc23 20 12039629

Acquisitions Editor: DougGoldenberg-

Hart
Production Editor: TracyBuyan
Typesetter: C&M Digitals {Pllt d.
Proofreader
: KristinBergsta
d
Indexer: Beth Nauman-Montana
Mar1<et
ing Manager: Carmel Schrire
CoverDesigner: Scott VanAlla 12 131415161098765 4 32 J

Copyrighted material
 ~ TABLE
OFCONTENTS

Preface VII
..
Contr ibu tors
.IX

CHAPTER1 PARTY
LEADERSHIP
INCONGRESS 1
Congressiona l Leadersh ip Struct ure 3
The House Speaker 8
House Leadership: A Hierarchy of Support 33
Leadership in the Senate:·we Know No Masters· 44
Party Sup port Structur e in the Senate 57
Selecte d Bibliog raphy 61

CHAPTER2 THE
LEGIS
LATIV
EPROC
ESS 65
Rules Guide the Process 65
Developing Legislat ion 74
House Floor Act ion : Structured Efficiency 84
Senate Floor Actio n: Flexibility, Informality 107
Final Action: Resolving Differences 120
Selec ted Bibliog raphy 134

3 THECOMMITTEE
CHAPTER SYSTEM 137
Com m ittees in Transition 137
The History of Comm ittee Evolut ion 14 1
Committ ee St ructu re 162
Committee Assignments 169
Committee Procedu res 176
Jurisd ict iona l Confl icts 177
Oversight Manda te 180
Selec ted Bibliog raphy 184

CHAPTER4 CONGRESS
IONAL
STAFF 185
Postwa r Waves o r Staff Expansion 185
Evolution of the Cong ressional Staff 188
Committee and Personal Staff: What They Do 196
The Cost and Pay o f Cong ressional Staff 208
Congressio nal Staff: Eth ics and Leg alit ies 209
Selecte d Bibliog raphy 221

r V

Copyrighted material
 P Ill COtlGRESS
chap ter 1 PARTYLEADERSHI 33

20 I0. Tho ug h dependa bly conservative, he had n ever been

cons idered a visionary thin ker like Gingrich or a strong-
willed discipl inar ian like Delay .
Nevert heless, Boch ner h ad ear ned cred ibili ty an1ong
junio r Repu blicans in par t beca use he himsel f was o nce a
young rebel. Upo n coming to the House in 199 1, he com -
plained about the excesses o f the inc umbent Democrats who
had long bee n in power . He fell in with the similarly refor m-
mind ed Gingric h and beca me Republic an Con ference cha ir
after the 1994 elections gave their party co ntro l of th e House.
After losing the Republican Conference cbain 11anship in
1999, he spent five years as chair of the Co111mittee on Educa -
tion and the Workforce ( now the Comm ittee on Education
and Labor), helping pass the 200 I No Child Left Behind
ed ucation reform law and oth er measu res. As min ority
leader, he rallied Republicans to pass the Troub led Asset
Relief Program for the ailing financia l indus try in 2008 after
an initial vote failed, even though he famous ly derided th e
$700 b illion rescue plan as a "crap sandwich.''
In his initial n1onths as speaker, Boehner en1ployed a
hybrid stra tegy of leade rship. On day -to -day ,natters, he
granted commillce chairs n1ore latitu d e than any speaker
since Foley, an act ion tha t stem med fron1 his own experience
chairing the Co mm ittee o n Education and the \l\lorkforce. He
let the new Budget Co1nmit tee cha ir, \\/ isconsin's Paul Ryan,
craft a controvers i.al b udget bl ueprint that unme diately came
under attac k from Democrats for resha ping Medi care. lie
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, attends a news
also lived up, at least initially, to h is earl ier prom ises to open conferencefor Democratic leaders'plans to set an ultimate dead-
up the legislative process . In the first five mon th s of the I 12th line of August 2008 for U.S.combat troop removal from Iraq.
Co ng ress, the I lous e cons idered and voted on mo re tha n 430 1
Boehner became his party s House minority leader in November
a.mendments and took up s~x bills with mod ified op en rules 2006.
allow ing for wide-ra ng ing debate. During th e en tire I I Ith <OvRcr:Scon
J. Ferrell.Congressiona
Quarterly.
Co ngress, De1n ocrats perini tted one bi ll u nder a modified
open rule and considered 8 10 amendments. Part o f the rea-
son for Boehners approach came fro,n his inabil ity to rely on short-term spend ing bill know n as a cont in uing resolution,
one of the chief tools of his predecessors: House Republicans or CR, to fund the federal government. Forty-eight Republ i-
took umbrage at and ba nned special -interes t ap p ropriations cans joine d De,nocrnts in oppos ing the n1easure; Repu blican
"car1na rks." leadership aides said Boehner was aware the stopgap bill
But on th e sign ificant issues that divided the two pa r- wou ld fail and wanted to sen d a message to the defecting
ties, Boehner used a ccntraliicd, top-down style similar to Republicans how their act ions would subsequently force
that of Pelosi. He assumed the lead ro le on nego tiating a fiscal party leaders to negotia te with Democrats to win passage of
year 2011 budget deal wit h Obama that avo ided a govern - a m uch less desira ble bill.
ment shutdown - so,n cth ing many tea party - backed Repub-
lica ns said they were willing to let occur . Du ring an even
more polar izing subsequent debate on ra ising the federal
HOUSELEADERSHIP:
A HIERARCHY
debt ceiling anot her idea that tea party members vehe-
OFSUPPORT
mently opposed - Bochn er stern ly called for par ty un ity. "Get The parry leade rship struct ur e is parti cularly in1portant 111
your ass in line," h e bluntly told House Republica ns at a the House because of its size an d consequent potential for
dosed-door meeting at which the debt ceiling legislation was unwieldiness. In his 1963study of the House, Forge of Democracy,
discussed. His ad 111onishn1en t led several Republicans to Neil MacNe il described th e chamber's leade rsh ip organiza-
drop the ir opposition .'19 tions as its "pries th ood ." Though the younge r, 1nedia-savvy,
Boehner used a different tac tic several mont hs later , sound -bite quoting, expert fun d -raisers who rose to the lead -
wh en he soug h t to bri11g his caucus on boar d to support a ersh ip late in the twentiet h cent u ry might laugh at such a

But perceptions lingered that Byrd was too stilted and
old-fash ioned to be the Senate Den,ocrats ' nationa l spokes-
person in the age of television . After the 1984 elections La\v-
ton Chiles of Florida challenged Byrd for the leadership p ost
but lost , 36- 1 l. Never before had anyone challenged an
incun,ben t Den,ocratic leader in the Senate, and it \\'as a sign
of sin1n1ering d iscontent that Chiles, a cautious, n1oderate-
to-conservative figure, had chosen to undertake it. J. Bennett
Johnst on of Louisiana spent 1nuch of 1986 preparing to cha l-
lenge Byrd, but ivhen the De1no cra ts regaine d control of the
Senate, and by a n1uch wider 1nargin tha n ha d been ex.--pected,
he quietly dropped his plans .
In his second tour as majority leader Byrd played the
partisan spokespe rs on that his party seemed to vvant, rally-
ing the Democrats be hind an a1nbi tious legisla tive agenda
n, eant to show tha t the De1nocrats could govern . But cr iti-
cisms of his leade rship style and his n1edia irnage continued,
and in the spring of 1988 Byrd announced that h e would
retire from the lead ership post at the end of the year to take
up th e chairn,ans hip of the Senate Appropriations Comn1 it-
tee an d to beco n,e president pro tempore, w here he ,vas
n1ore act ive than previous occupa nts , son1et in1es choosing
to pres ide over con1plex pa rlian1en tary situat ions in \vhich
his kn o\vledge of Senate rules \\'as especially valu ab le. And
on th e App ro priat ion s Com 111ittee, Byrd \Vas in an even b et -
ter p osition to direc t bill ions of do llars to his ho1ne state.
Even in the 1ninori ty after 1994, Byrd re1nained an aggressive
ir1stitut ionalist , lead U1g opposition to the enactment of the
line - iten1 veto in 1996 and challenging it in th e U.S. Su pren1e
Cour t. He \\1as ult in1ate ]y vind icated in 1998 \vhen tbe
Co urt, in a case brought b y other p ersons, declared th e law
uncons t itutional. In the twenty -first century, the one -tune
proponent of escalation during the Vietna1n \.Var b eca1ne an
unlikely hero to liberal an ti,\rar activis ts ,.vith powerfu l
denunciations of Pres id ent George W. Bush's decision to go
to vvar in Iraq . (See box, Line-Iten1 ,reto Experin1ent Ended by
Supren1e Court, p. 130.)
TheModernLeadership:
Mitchell
1"he \¥inn er in a three -\.vay race to succeed Byrd as 111ajority
leader '\,VasGeorge J. Mitche ll of Ma in e, unsuccessfu l Demo -
cratic nom in ee for Ma in e gove rn or in 1974 and forn,er fed -
eral judge . .tvfitchell was appo inted to the Senate to fill th e
vacancy caused in 1980 by President Car ter's appointn1ent of
Sen. Edn1und Muskie as sec retar y of state and did n ot have to
run for election i.n that year. He qui ckly caught the notice of
his colleagues ivith h is keen 1ne1nory for detail and his con1-
mand of facts, particularly on environ1nental issues. Mitchell
further impressed his fello,.v sena tors with his political skills
,.vhen he came from th irty-six points behind to \\1 in election
to a full term in 1982 ,.vith 6 1 percent of the vote.
Chosen to chair the Den,ocrat ic Senatorial Campaign
Comn1ittee for th e critical 1986 elections, 11itchell ,.vas
c h a p te r 1 PARTY
LEADERSHIP IN CONGRESS 51
instrumenta l in helpin g the pa r ty rega in co n trol of the Senate
\\•ith a ,vider-than-expccted n1argin. As a re\.vard he \Vas n1adc
deputy president pro ten1pore, a post created for Hubert H .
Hun1phrey, D-Minn., in J.977 and not o ccupied s inc e.
Appo in ted in 1986 to th e jo int com ,nittee investigating the
Iran-c ontra sca n dal, the secret sale of U.S. arn,s to Iran and
d iversio n of son,e of the p rofi ts to "co n tra" rebel forces in
N icaragua, Mitc h ell proved hin1sclf to be an ab le p er fon ner
b efore national television ca1neras, a factor considered crucia l
to his election as 1najority leader over Bennett Johnston of
Louisiana and Daniel K. Inouye of Ha,.vaii.
Mitche ll's background left h in1 flexible enoug h for a
variety of tasks avvaitillg the leader of a rapidly changing body
tha t had jus t endured nvo sh ifts of partis an con t rol. "T h e role
of party leaders has changed so that ... they have become
conci liators ,.vho n,ust set broad goa ls and then prepare
themse lves for incre1nental progress that may yield botli
po licy cha nge and even tu al political support, " 1Vational Jour-
nal reporter Richard E. Cohen has ,\,ritten. 79
In h is first year in th e posit ion, M itch ell won h igh
marks for his legislat ive savvy and adn,inist ration of the
Senate . Early in 1990 he de n,on st rate d the effect iven ess of
negot iat ion and persistence, ,.vorking ou t a co1nprehensive
con1pron1ise \Vith the Vlhite House on a clean air b ill \vhen it
b ecan1e clear that the con1111ittee version cou ld not overcon 1e
a fil ibus ter and the n figh ting to protect the co1npro1nise fro1n
1najor a1nendment. The b ill vvas assernbled over a 1nonth of
extraordinary clos ed -door meetings just off the Senate floor
run by Mitchell, \Vho assen 1bled key senators a nd ad n1ini stra-
tion representatives to thras h o ut details for a packag e that
could be prote cted by a b ipartisan n1ajority coaliti on . Mitc h -
ell attributed h is victory on the floor to dire ct, pe rsona l, face -
to -face talks ,.vith his colleagues, urging the1n to stick \\1 ith the
compromise or see the entire bill collapse under the ,.veight of
controve rsial amendments. Jvlitchell also cen1ented h is lead -
ership by successfully staring dovvn his p redecesso r, Byrd ,
,\•ho se efforts to protect coal 1nin ers thr eate ned to unrave l the
bi ll. Byrd's key floor an1endn1ent ,vas defeated by a sin gle
vote.
Rep ublica ns considered Mitchell pa r tisan, b ut h is judi-
cial den,eanor often served to n1ask th at aspect of his leader -
sh ip . H is more n1a tter -of- fact deb ate style was a far cry fro m
the son1etin1es en,otional, florid perfonna n ces of Johnson,
D irksen, and Byrd . Nonet hele ss, Mitchell onen found the
Senate as frus trat ing as they had. 1-lis anno uncen1 ent that he
\vould not seek reelec ti on in 1994 shoc ked colleagues. He
quickly bec a1ne the front -runner for a vacancy on th e
Supreme Court in tha t year, but Mitche ll issued a state1nent
asking that he not b e consi dere d and no ti ng the irnportance
of h is presence as ma jor ity leader in trying ( ultimately unsuc-
cessfully) to push h ealth care legislation through the Senate.
T h e co ntest to succeed Mitchell as Democratic leade r
bega n as a contest bet\\ 1een you nger senators close to
Copyr ighted materia l
80 HOW CONGRESS WORKS
Jiear ings arc used for a variety of purposes - to gather
information, to attract 1ne d ia attenti on, to test initial reac tion
to a legislative idea. Hearings may be held by either a sub -
comm ittee o r a full com mittee - so m etimes bo th. Full com -
mitttes will so metime s ho ld hearin gs as well on subjects of
maj o,· publ ic co ntr ove rsy, or when witne sses fro m the top
levels of government arc called to testify. Senate hear ings in
1997 on alleged cam paign finance scand als were held by the
full Co1nmittee on Govermn ental Affairs, ins tead of its inves-
tigations subco1111nittee, and a co n1panion House in quiry was
run by the full Conunittee on Govenunen t Refon n and Over-
sigh t. Major League Baseball stars appeared before that same
House comm ittee in 200S to resrify abo ut ste ro id use in the ir
sport.
I Jearings are int ende d as fact-finding forum s to educa te
both n1embers of Congr ess and the public about spec ific
pro blems. They may also be used ro assess th e degree of sup -
por t o r o ppos ition ro a particular b ill o r to prom ote su pport
or oppos ition to a bill in Co ngress and among the publ ic.
Some hear ings are h eld pr imar ily to score politica l poin ts and
but tress the views of th e n1ajor ily par ty. Many hearings are
brief and per functor y. Because de1nands on legislato rs' time
arc so great, o nly a few111c1nbcrswith a special interest in a
subject arc likely to par ticipa te.
'The presence of te1evision, along with controvers i_al
subject mat ter, can attract substantial interes t from 1ne1nbers
even o n subj ects on wh ich they m igh t not otherwise active ly
partici pate. Th e creation o f the Cable-Sa tellite Public Affairs
Netwo rk {C-SPA N), which usually televises some hearings on
any day that Congress is in session, has forced Co ngress to
accom m odate th e ne w medium . Telev.ision's pow er ful intru-
siveness is coupled with th e med ium 's need for inter esting or
dramatic events th at read ily prov ide h eroes and villa ins and
pro,note controversy. Me,nbers with th e skill to accom mo-
date these channe ls of conun uni catio n to the public have a
powe rful force to influence the o utcon1e of policy debates.
Incr easingly. commillees arc making their proceed ings av11il-
ab le th rough webcasts tha t can be viewed live or later on. (See
box, Televise,/ fl oor Deba tes I {ere to S ta); p. 82.)
Some hearings do not directly involve legislation . T he
Army-McCa rthy hearings in the ear ly I 950s tu rned pub lic
opinion again st Sen. Joseph R. McCar thy, R-\•Vis., who had
made a caree r o f accusations o f con1J11unis1
· pe n etrat io n of
the govern ment. Senate rorc ign Relations Co mmi ttee hea r-
ings in the ,n id- I960s, unde r Sen. J. \.Villiam r ulbright,
D-Ark ., ,nobilized o pposi tion to the Vietnam \.Var. Senate
comm ittee hea rings in 1973 int o a variety of illegal act ivities
in the \ Vh ite Hous e that came to be kn own collectively as th e
\.Vatergate scandal, and th e ensuing 1974 House Jud iciary
Conuni llee i1npeachn1en t proceedi ngs again st President
Nixon, destroyed th e remna nts of pop ular support for Nixon
and, in rhe pr ocess. made folk heroes of the comm ittees'
chai rs, Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C .,an d Rep. Peter \V. Rodino Jr.,
D-N.J. Televised Senate Judiciary Con11nittee h earings in
1987 helped fuel the cont roversy over the n on1in ation of
Robert H. Bork to a scat on the Supreme Cour t, movi ng pub-
lic op in io n decisively against h im and ens uring his defeat.
Explosive 1991 heari ngs by the all- male Senate Judicia ry
Co m m ittee on sexua l hara ssment accusati ons aga inst
Supreme Coul'l nominee Clarence T ho,nas charged a nat iona l
debate that con tin ued years later. \~thile pu blic op in ion about
Th o111as was shar ply divided and he was ultiln atcly con-
firm ed by a 52- 48 vote , the m ost immediate in1pact of the
hearings was to focus n1ore attentio n o n issues of sexua]
harass inent and gende r politics in the 1992 political can1·
paigns, cont rib uting to the electi on of four addit ional women
to the Senate in a peri od tha t the ir suppo rters called the Year
of the \.Voman. Such oversigh t o r confirmation hearing s may
air issues tha t lend t hemselves to legislatio n late r on.
In less historic or controvers ial circ u,nstances, a reaso n-
ab le amo unt of nationa l press coverage will result from testi-
mony by popular actors and o th er celebr ities who arc active
in a pa rticu lar cause, such as Bono, the lead singe r of U2, on
debt relief and AIDS (acq uired in11nune deficiency syn-
dro n1e) in Africa an d ac tor Michael J. Fox on Park inson's
disease. Ordi na ry citizens with good stories to tell can also h it
a nerve, espe cially o n subjects of b road public in terest.
In the last three decades, m ost hearings and m eeti ngs o f
co ngress io nal co n1111ittees occ urre d i,n open sess io n . alth ough
con1mittees dealing witb. national securi ty an d o the r sensiti ve
or classified informatio n often do se th eir n1eetings. T he con -
gressio nal Intelligen ce co mm ittees nearly always meet in
closed session. T he Senate Armed Serv ices and I louse Armed
Services comm ittees use a con1bi11atio n of open and closed
(executive) hearings. Un til J97 l the f-!o use Appr opr iatio ns
Co mmi ttee held all its h earin gs in closed session.
House rules by 1995 made it extreme ly difficult for
m ost com mitt ees and subconun ittecs to close meet ings or
hearings except for a few specified re-~sonsrelating to nationa l
security, use of law enforce n1enl infonn atio n, or protec tion
of the rig hts of witn esses testifying. A rules amendment in
1995 liberalized medi a access lO ope n sessions and made
coverage by rad io, televisio n, and photogra phers a right to be
exercised by the p ress, no t a privilege lo be gran ted or with -
held by conu nitt ees.
Markup
Once the hear ings arc concluded, the next step in the I louse
is usually a subcom,nittce markup. In the Senate, 1nosl com -
mittees skip th e subco mmitte e mar kup phase and begin the
process at the full co,nmittee level. Exceptions to th is prac-
tice in the Senate in recent years have been the Approp ria-
tions and Anne d Services Co,nmittees and the Judiciary
Co n11nittee when a pr opose d consti tutional an1end1nent is
the subject.
The subcom m ittee may rake n o ac tion , in effect killing
a b ill. Or it 1nay mar k up the bill, consider ing th e contents of
each provis ion and section of the 1neasure, atnending soine

provisions, d iscardin g others, and perhaps rewri ting the ,nea -
surc altoge ther. \Vhen the mar kup is finish ed , the subcom-
mittee sends its version o f the legislation, pres uming it has
no t rejected the ,n easurc, to the full committee. In so me
ins tan ces, the full com mittee may exercise its author ity to
take up the b ill directly, bypass i11ga separate subconun ittee
mark up stage.
Th e full comrnittcc ,nay repeat the subconnn ittce pro-
cedur es, so meti mes even in clud ing ad d itiona l hear ings. It
,nay conduc t an an1ending process, especially if the stage of
subcomn1ittee ac tion l1as b een bypassed, or it n1ay si.tnply
ratify th e act ion of the subcommittee . Freq uen tly the full
commi ttee will p ropose addi tio nal amendmen ts to alte r the
proposal. If the amendments arc no t extensive, the orig inal
bill is reported with ame11dmcnts.
If a b ill is to be rewr itten extensively after it is referred
to committee, as is often the case with major pieces oflegisla -
tio n , the cha ir may offer a full subs titute amendment that
replaces the origina l language with a new version incorporat-
ing all of the changes agreed upo n be hind closed d oors. Leg-
islation may also be marked up as a d raft bill- o ne that has
no t been fonna lly introduced in the House - and later intro-
duced with all of the cha nges incorporated. This 1nethod ,
trad itionally used by the Approp riatio n s Com,n iltee and its
s ubco m n1ittees. has been em ployed on occas ion io recent
years by au thorizing committees .
Com .mittee chairs 1nay also choose to introduce a new
version o f the b ill- called a clean bill- after it has been
marked up, partic ularly if majo r changes have been made .
T he original bill is then set aside, and the clean bill, with a
new nu mbe r, is the versio n voted out of comm ittee and
reporte d . This p ractice has beco,nc less common in recent
years as th e use o f substitu te a1ncnd1ncnts and d raft b ills has
co1ne 111oreinto favor.
Incorporating all of the widely suppor ted changes to a
bill before it h its the floor red uces the amo un t of ti1ne spent
on floor amendments and makes moot the issue of whether
the prov isions arc ger mane. If a provisio n is in a bill when it
c<) 1ncs to the floo r, it can not be ruled to be nongcn 11anc 1 but
if a lawmake r atlcm pu to attac h it lo a bill through a floor
amendment, it can be ruled out of order .
So any amendments ma de par t of a dean comn1itt ee
bill, a draft measu re that serves as the text for a bill, o r a bill
that has been altered with a full comm ittee subs titute, arc
usually protec ted fro,n poi nts o f or d er on the floor. (There
arc exceptions that c.in be used to delete provis ions from bills
that include tax or tariff matters not reported by the \Nays
and Means Conun ittee and pro visions in appro priatio ns bills
that violate the jurisdictions of authorizing conunittees. )
In 1973 both chan1bers adopted new rules to enco urage
more committees to open their markup mee tings to the
pub lic, and n1ost committee meetings were opened . Some
1narkups, fo r exmnple 1nany subco ,nmittee markups of
approp r iations or defense authorizat ion b ills, were closed,
c hapter 2 THELEGIS
LATIVEPROCESS 81
however. Advocates o f dose d sessions believed that mc,nbers
woLLldmake pol itically d ifficult decisions more easily in the
abse nce of lobby ists and interested cons tituents. T he ,ninor-
ity, which often objected to the d ecisions made, pressed for
greater ope n ness and attacke d closed sessions as a symbo l of
majority arrogance.
When the Republica ns ass um ed cont rol of the House in
1995, they a,ne nd ed ru les for the conduct of meetings and
hearings to n1akc closed sessions more d ifficult. fo r cxainplc,
the new rules allowed a com,nittee 1n ajority, by a roll-call
vote, to close all or par t of a 111eeti.t1gto consider legislation
only by determi.t1ing that an opeo meeting would endange r
na tional secur ity; con1pro mise sens itive law enforcement
informa tion; tend to defame, degrad e, or incr iminate any
person; or violate a law or rule of the I louse . Arguments to
dose as a ma tter o f convenience or to satisfy mem bers' desire
for privacy no longer carried weigh t. All meetings an d hear-
ings open to the pub lic were also open auto matically to
broadcast and photograph ic 111edia,without the need for
ad vance pcnnission .
\Vhen a co1n mittee votes to approve a n1casur e, it is said
to order the bill reported. Occasionally, a co1nmittee ,nay
order a bill repo rted unfavora bly or without recommenda -
tion. Th e House Judicia ry Co mm ittee, for cxa,nple, voted
19- 17 in Jun e 1990 to repo rt without recommendat io n a
proposed const itu tional an1endn 1en t barring desecration of
the Alner ican flag. In such cases, the com,nittee may be acting
only because of overwhelming pol itical pressure to deal with
legislation a major ity of its me,nbe rs disapp rove of but feel
that they cannot avoid. Th is situation occu rred after th e
Su preme Cour t threw ou t a statute barring the practice on
co nst it ut ional ground s. Th e cons t itut ional amend ment later
passed in th e House bu t failed in the Senate.
But beca use a conunit tee can effectively kill a ,neasure
by not acting o n it, a con1n1ittee gene rally schedules a
markup only when its intentio n is to move the legislation
along the process, and comn 1illce reports almost invariably
recommend passage . T hose bills repo rted favorably have
usually been amended to sat isfy a major ity of the cc)1111nit-
tce's mc 1nbc rs.
Committee
Reports
House ru les an d Senate custom requi re that a written repo rt
accompany each bill repor ted from a conu nit tcc to the floor.
The report, wr itten by the comm illec staff, typically d escribes
the purpose and scope of the bill in pla in English , expl ains
committee a,n endm ents, ind icates proposed cha nges in exist-
ing law, est ima tes addit ional costs to the govern1nent of the
recomn1ended progrmn changes, and often incl udes the te>.'ts
of comn1unications fro1n depart1nen t and agency officials
whose views o n the legislation have been solicited . Comm it-
tee members opposed to the bill o r specific section s of it often
sub1nit minority views in a separate section of the report.
Bills d ischarged fron1 a co1nmittee prior to forn1a) conuni ttee
82 HOW CONGRESS WORKS
TELEVISED FLOORDEBATESHERETO STAY
Atnoonon March 19,1979,the U.S.House of Representatives madeitslivetelevislon
debut.Thatappearancewasthe culminationof yearsof hardworkbyproponents of
theidea.Firstproposed in 1944bythen-Senato rClaudePep per, D-Fla.,
themove ment
to openthechambersto television came ras took hold only slowly in a bodyoften
resistant to change.Senate flooractionhasbeentelevisedonly since June1986.
Al Gore,a TennesseeDemocratwho became vice president under Bill Clinton,
ledthe fightfortelevisionintheHouse,
wherehe serve
d from 1977to 1985,and in
the Senate,where he servedfrom1985to 1993."The marriage of this mediumand
of our opendebate havethe potential ... to revitalizerepresentativedemocracy,"
Goresaidin the first televisedspeechin 1979,a one-minuteaddressto theHouse
beforetheregular legislative daybegan.
Becausememberscan use television to keepupwith theaction, saidpolitical
scientistSteven S.Smith in 1989,"[they)are not quite asreliant on a colleague at
thedoor tellingthemwhetherto vote up or down."
DAWN
OFANEWAGE
Until the early 1970s,televisedcongressional proceedingswere just a dreamto
proponents.But the arrival InCong ressof reform-minded member s in the wakeof
political scandals in the1970s
, particularly theWatergateaffair that ledto President
Richard M. Nixon's resignation,contributed to an atmosph ere moreamenable to
transparen cy.
In 1977the Democ ratic leadershipdirected the HouseSelect Comm itteeon
Congressional Operations to conduct a ninety-dayexperimentusing closed -circuit
telecastsof House floor proceedi ngs to members' offices.Theexperiment was
labeled a success, and on October 27, 1977,the Housetentatively agreedto go
ahead , althoughit took some time to iron out thedetails.
In June 1978newsorganizations beganbroadcasting Houseproceed ingsover
radio,and by March1979television had arrived.TheCab le-Satellite Public Affairs
Network ((-SPAN), the private,nonprofit cooperativ e of the cable television
industry,waslaunched in 1979with the expresspurposeof televising Cong ress.
Hous e employees remainin control of the cameras.
TheSenate proceededmoreslowly Inbringing Inthecame ras.MajorityLeader
Howard H.BakerJr., R-Tenn., began the effort in earne
st in 1981.In Februa
ry 1986
theSenatepasseda resolution to allowtelevision broadcasting.
act ion and brou ght up on the floor are not accompanied by a
,-vritten report.
Often there is a considerabl e delay be1'veen the day tha t
a con11nittee orde rs a bill reported and \vhen the bill is actu -
ally reported to the floor.
After enactment of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1970, comn1ittees ,-vererequ ired to pub lish in their repo rts
all votes taken on an1endn1en ts disposed of during n1arkup
as 1-vell as the vote to report the bill. On ly vote totals 1-vere
required, not the position of ind ividua l n1en1bcrs on roll
calls. Following rules changes in 1995, House co1nn1ittees
1-vererequired to publ ish iJl the repor t ho\v n1e1nbers voted
individually both on the bill an d on any amendrnents con-
sidered and disposed of by roll-call vote, 1\1hether successful
or not.
For a month theSenatepermittedclosed -circuit transmiss
ions intomembe rs'
offices,
followedbysix weeks of public broadcasts.Attheconclusion of thesix-wee
k
testperiod,theSenatevotedto keepthecame raspermanently.And onJune 2,1986,
theSenate premieredon a second (-SPAN channel.
Senaterulesarefairly strict.Camerasare operatedbycongressional staff and
usually remainfixedon a single speaker.InitiallytheHouserulesweresimilar.Since
May1984,howeve r, House camerasbegan to slowlypanthe roomduring votesand
speci al orders,a period at the end of a dailysession when membersmayspeakon
varioustopics,usuallyto a mostly emptychamber.
Speake r Thomas P."Tip" O'Neill, D-Mass.,orderedthat thecameras
show the
viewing audiencethat future SpeakerNewt Gingrich, R-Ga., and his conservative
allieswere fulminating to an emptychamber when theybegan gainingattention as
partisanbomb-throwersin the1980s .
When Gingrich and Republicanstookcontrol of theHousein 1995,procedures
for panning the chamber changed.The camera would focus on individual
membe rs talking on benchesin thechamber or reading thenewspape r, practices
that appearedto give somedegreeof editorial controlto the camera operators
andraisedconcernsabout possible partisanabuse of the television coverage.After
protests at the newintrusiveness, Speaker
Gingrich orderedthatsuchclose-upsof
members who are not directly participating in the businesson the floor be
stopped.
THEVIEWING
AUDIENCE
The public doeswatch Congresson television,thoughnot asmuch asit once did.In
January 1998,(-SPAN had72.5 million subs cribing householdswho receivedits
cable channel showing Houseproceedings
(C-SPA
Nl), and 49.S million for its
Senatechannel (C-SPAN2).Based
on PewResear
chCenterfor the Peo
ple and the
Pressresearch,(-SPANestimatedthat in 2006it had52 million adult viewers.In
2010,the NewYorkTimesciteda recentpollbyFairleigh DickinsonUniversity that
found that52percentof voters saidtheywatched(-SPANat leastoncein a while.
Time isa preciouscommodity for members of Congress
.Televisedproceedi ngs
and committeehearingsoftenallowthem to gaugetheirtimebetter during votes
and otherflooractivities.Members followthe proceed
ingsandcommitteehearings
to keepabreast of the latest developments.
House comm ittees are requ ired to keep a record of all
roll calls and 1nake it available to the pub lic on request, \\1 hich
provides another sou rce of inforn1ation if a bill has never
been reported. The Senate has sin1ilar, if so me1-vhatloose r,
procedural requiren1ents. It requires that th e results of all
votes, including the votes of individua l senators, be included
in the com mit tee report unless previously announced by the
con1n1ittee.
Reports are n Lllnbe red, by Congress and chan1ber, in the
order in 1-vhich they arc filed (for cxan1plc, 5 Rcpt I I 0-1, S
Rcpt I I 0-2 , H Rcpt 110- 1, H Rcpt I I 0-2, and 0111 -vard, \Vith
the first nu.111
ber referring to the Congress in \vhich the bill is
reporte d) an d inunedia tely prin ted. The report nu1nber an d
the date the bill 1-vasrepor ted formally are also sho1-vnon the
bill. The reported bill is also printed ,-vith any cornmit tee
Copyrighted material
 c h apt er 2 THELEGIS
LATIVE
PRO
CESS 83

MIXED
VERDICTS
ONMEDIA
IMPACT obsolete by television."Not only is it impossi
ble to strikewordstaken down
Membe rs of Congress
and political scient
istsagreethat the camera s area fixture in from the ( -SPAN record but the process, designedto enhancecivility, may
thechambers and thepublicwouldnot allowtheir removal."The horrorstories that instead diminish it, as the offending Memberplaysto the camer as.(-SPAN
were supposed to happen didn't happen,"political scientistLarrySabatosaid in 1989. footage alsoincreases the likelihoodthat moments of incivility will bereplayed
Whilepassageofruleschangesallowing televisioncoverageof floorproceedings on the news."
wasprobablyinevitable,the ultimateeffecton thelegislativeprocess at the heart of Poten tially embarrassing clipsof membersare e-mailedaroundWashington,
Congr essremains difficultto evaluate.Around the turn of the twenty-first century, D.C.,andpostedon webs itesquickly,someJust forhumor and othersto do political
widespread comp laintswereaired by members about theincreasin g partisanship damage.
andmeannes s in debate,andsome obse rvers-both in andout of Congress- Someof these concerns reflecttwenty-first-centurysens
ibilitiesabout theway
blamedthelive coverage for encouraging useof floor speeches to produce sound a political processshould be conducted. In earliertimes,membersof Congress
bites fortheeveningnews.A substantiveandspont aneouslegislativeprocess,it is sometimes fought eachother in physical brawls on the floor and had duels with
argued, has toooften beensidelinedby stagedevents.Not only television, but also political opponents. Sorecent instancesof incivility,while disturbing, pale in
theadventof talk radioshowsthatspec ializedin inciting listene
rs,contributed to a historical comparison.
debaseme nt of politicaldialogue.Inrecentyears, thatphenomenonhas extended to Mostobservers of Congressagreethat despiteall theattention generated
the twenty-four-hour cable newstelevisio n networksand websitesthat capture byteleviseddebate,Congresssurvived the television revolution.It wasa change
footage ortranscrip ts of floorproceedings. the public would haveforced eventually if the two houses had not acted.
In the House, useof one-minutespeech es for this purposehas become Television madethework of membersof Congres s morerealand immediate to
widesp read,with outside political committees and interest groupssending cons tituents, giving a senseof elected officials that voters oftensawonly in
suggested remarksformembers to recite.Bothpartiesoftencaref ullyorganizetheir campa ign commerc ials.In that sense,television strengthened Congressasan
presentationsin this daily forum.Theuse of charts and exhibits likely to bevisible institution.
on a television screenhas proliferated.Eve n opposing political candidates have In recentyears, televise
d coverageof Congress hasexpanded intocommittee
gotten into the act, using exce rpts of speeches by Housemembersin campaign meetings.Under Houserules, committee proceedingsmust beopen to television
comme rcials and then attacking them.A Houserule prohibits useof the televised and radiocove rageunlessthepanelvotes bymajority at a publicmeeting to gointo
proceed ings for political purposes,but it is enforceable only against sitting execu tive session.Com mittees have taken advantage of newtechnologyandoften
members.Democrats hadbeenconside ring a proposal to modifythisrule,effective maketheir procee dings available through webcasts,whichallowviewersto watch
with the 104th Congress, to allowmembers to better defend themselvesagainst livetransm issionswithout having to get to Capitol
Hill.
opponents who mightuseexcer ptsof floorproceedingsin potentiallymisleading
souRCEs:Jo
hn Schachter: congress Begins Second Decadeunder TV's
ways,but the idea died with the 1994 electio
n that turnedover Hous
e control to Watchful Glare.' CongressionalQuarcerlyWeeklyRepore,March 1 I, 1989,
Republicans. 507-509;"New Survey:22 /v\illion Watch C-SPAN Weekly."C-SPANnews
In Civilityin the Houseof Represen
tatives,political scientist KathleenHall release,January6, 1997; BrianStelter,"C-SpanPuts Full Archives o n t he VVeb.'
New YorkTimes, March 16, 2010, C-1;and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Civilityin
Jamieson arguedthat traditional methods for striking inappropr iate languag
e the Houseof Representatives,Report Series No. 10 (Philadelphia: University of
from the Congressional Record and letting tempers cool had been rendered Pennsylvania,Annenberg Public PolicyCenter, 1997).

an1endn1ents indicated by insertions in italics and deletions
in st r icken -th roug h type .
Somet i,n es, a House con1111i ttee w ill re1,vork legislation
1,vell a~er th e tin1e it is repo r ted using the Rules Co1nn1itte e
as a n1eans to make final changes to its liking, to accommo-
date oth er com n1ittees' inte rests , or to deal with concerns
ra ised by the leaders h ip. In these cases , th e Rules Con1mittee
,n ay n1ake a n e,v bill, of ten referr ed to as an a1nend1n en t in
th e nature of a su bst itute, the ve hicle for fonn al debate and
an1cnd1ncnt o n the floor, ,vh ilc reta ini ng th e s hell of th e bill's
HR nun1b er. Adopt io n of the rtlle could s ubsti tu te th is neYv
te"'t fo r the or iginal lang uag e, ,vhich 1,vould never be formally
ac ted on and woul d d isap pea r entirely once the bill is passe d.
O r the Rules Co1n1nittee may al101,v consideration of a ne 1,v
bill ,vith an entirely ne1¥ nu1nber, making th e leg islative
h isto ry of an issue into a tricky maze in ,vh ich the or igina l
bill, al ong ,vith its com m itt ee report, ap p ears to die th roug h
lack of Hou se considerat ion w h ile for n1ing the basis of even-
tual cha n1ber acti o n.
Legislative
Intent
In son1e situat ion s, th e language of th e report is as important
as the b ill itself. It has bee n con11non p ractice for co mm ittees ,
in clud ing House -Senate confe ren ce con11nittees, to ,vr ite in
the ir rep or ts instructions d ire cti ng govc rnn1 cn t agencies on
inte r p reta tion and en forcen1ent of the law. tvloreover, courts
have relied on th ese guidel ines i11establ ish ing \vhat is k110,vn
as legislat ive intent .
S01ne legal sch olars , ju dg es, and men1bers of the
Supre1ne Court have expressed skepticism about relying on

Copyrighted material
96 HOW CONGRESS WORKS

METHODS OFVOTINGIN THEHOUSEAND SENATE:PUTTINGMEMBERS

'
POSITIONSON THERECORD

The House and Senate haveeach developed their own proceduresfor voting. memberobjectsto thevoteonthosegrounds.The resu ltingvoteboth establishes
a
Guiding themare voting rulesspelled out in the U.S.Constitution. Mostspecific are quorumand settlesthequestion at issue.
n 5,Clause3:
requirements for roll-call votes,whichare set forth in ArticleI, Sectio A reco
rded vote,provided for by Houserules,maybedemanded bothin the
"Theyeasandnaysof the membersof either houseon any question shall, at the Houseandin the Comm itteeof the Whole,but it worksdifferently in eachcase. In
desireof one fifth of thosepresent,
beenteredon the Journal." Theprovision is theHouse,it maybe ordered upondemand of one-fifth of a quorumof 218,which
aimedat preventing secretballots. is44.For example.as a matterof strategy
, a memberwoulddemand a recordedvote,
not the yeasand nays,whenevera majority of the members were prese nt onthe
HOUSE floor because the requisite number (44)would alwaysbe lessthanone-fifth of
The Househasalsodeveloped a complexsetof rulesgoverninghowmembers make thosepresent.In theCommitt eeof the Whole a recordedvoteis always orderedby
demands on the Housefloor to have theirvotesrecorded. The Houseusesthree 25members. However,in practice, a reques t fora recorded
votemaynotneedthe
typesofvotes:voice,division,and votesrecordedbythe nameof the member("yeas visible suppo
rt of 25membersto beordered.
and nays"or "recordedvotes").TheHousemay take seve ral voteson the same Oncethe firstvotein a seriesof votesby electronicdevicebegins,members
proposition, using the most simple method first and then increas ingly more havea minimum of fifteenminutesto record their votes.Thevoting time is often
complexvotingmethods,beforea decisionis reached.(See "Actionin theCommittee shortenedto fiveminutes,if a number of voteshavebeenclustered,foreachvote
of theWhole," p. 100.) beyondthefirstone;again,an additional two minutes maybeallowed. Rega
rdless
A voicevoteis the quickest methodof voting andthe typenearly alwaysused of thetime limit, whichis technically a minimumand not a maximum.any member
firstwhen a propositionisfirst put to the members hip.The presiding officercallsfor whois in the chamber at the timetheresult is to be announcedhasthe rightto
the"ayes" and then the"nays,"members shoutin chorus on one sideor theother, record avoteor to change onealreadycast.Thetimeperiodwasextended regularly
andthechair decidestheresult. in the early yearsof thetwenty-firstcenturysothat partyleaderscould have extra
If the result of a voice voteis in doubtor a singlemember requestsa further minutes-o r in one caseextra hours- to try to changetheoutcomeof a vote.
test,a division,or standing,votemay be demanded. In this casethoseIn favor of Oncethe result hasbeen announced, howeve r, thevoteisclosedandmembers may
thepropos al and thenthoseagainstit standup while thechair takesa headcount. not subseque ntly voteor change theirvotes,even by unanimous consent. Often
Only votetotals are announced;thereIs no reco rd of how individual members members who missa votewill insert stateme nts in the Congressional
Record
vote.Fewissues are decidedbydivision vote.Aftera voicevote,membe rsusually immediately following themissedvoteindicatingwhattheir position would have
skipthe divisionvoteandaskfor a votein which membersare recordedbyname. been, thoughthereisno requirement that theydoso.
This kind of vote,whichis nearly alwaystaken usingtheelectronicvotingsystem, Until1971 theyeasand nays were the only voteson which Housemembers
drawsmostmembersto the chamber.It iscalledthe yeasand naysor a"recorded were individually recor ded. Votesin the Committeeof the Whole were taken by
vote" dependingon thecircumstancesunder whichit is taken, but the result is methods that did not record the standsof individual members. Manyques tions
identical. were decide d by"tellervotes"under which the chair appolntedtellers representin
g
Since1973 the Househasused an electronic voting syste m for recording opposite sidesona voteand directedmembersto passbetween themup thecenter
members' votes.Membersinsert identification cardsintoone of forty-four voting aisle to be counted - first the ayesand thenthe nays.Only vote totalswere
stationsmountedon the backsof chairsalong the aislesof the Housechamber. announcedon teller votes.
Whena memberpunchesa buttonto indicatehisposition,a giant boardonthe wall In the 1960s membe rs and outside Interestgroupsbegan to object to
of the pressgalleryabovethe Spea ker'sdeskimmediatelyflashes greenfor "yes" unrecorde d votesintheCommittee of theWhole. Theybelievedthatmembers could
andredfor"no" next to the legislator's name.Membersmayalsovote "present ," not be heldaccou ntable forsaying one thing to their constituentsbutvotingthe
whichshowsup asa yellowlight on the board.Membersmaychange their votesat oppos ite way by tellers.Memberscouldeffectively hide their votes on key
anytimeuntil the result isannou nced.The Spea ker mayvoteon anymatter but, by amendments,which weresometimescloselycontested and usuallydeterminedthe
tradition, rarely does. final form of the bill,whilegoing on the record onthelesscontrovers ial matter of
Theyeasandnays,providedfor by the Constitution, is used only whenthe final passage in theHouse. Liberalsalsobelieved that theirviewsmight have a
Houseitself is sitting and neverin the Committeeof the Whole. Thismethodof betterchanceto prevailagainst estab lishedinstitutionalpowercenters , whichwere
voting may be ordered by one-fifth of those prese nt regardlessof how few moreconservat ive,if memberswereforcedto goonreco rd.
members areon the floor.Houserules alsoprovide that it mayoccu
r automatica
lly A provision of the Legislative Reorga
nizationActof 1970openedthe wayfor
whenevera quorumis not presen t onthe floor whenthequestion is put and any "tellerswith clerks," morecommonly called"recorde d tellervotes."Thisprocedure,

In the I 12th Congr ess, 1vith the House aga in under 1vith only 21 in all of 20 I 0, \vhen the Den1ocrats were in
GOP contro l, Republican freshn 1en cla1noring to transfonn charge .
th e federal govern1nent persuade d ne\v Speaker John Boehner, "To find the last ti1ne the House \vorked in this \Vay,
R-Ohio, to open bills to more amen d1nents. In 2011, th e \\ 1ith really open access to the floor, you nee d to reac h back to

'House cast 516 roll-call votes on an1end n1ents, con1pared the 1970s;' says Sarah A. Binder, a po litical scientist at George

Copyrighted material
 cha p t er 2 THE LEGISLA
TIVEPROCESS 97

usedin 1971and1972,madeit poss ibleto reco

rd the votesof individualmembers candidates,oneRep ublica
n andone Dem ocrat,butthe 1997electionwasunusualas
in the Committeeof the Whole. Whenthechangefirstwentinto effect,members four Republica n members votedfor persons otherthan Speake r Newt Gingrich,
were requiredto write their nameson red or green cards,whichthey handedto R-Ga.,for reelection becauseof ethics controversies surro
unding him at thetime.
tellers. Theconseque nce of the rules change was swift. Manymore members They votedeither for another sitting Repub licanmember or for former House
appea redfor thesevotesbecauseabsentees could now benotedby namein the members.In 2011,most Democrats votedfor NancyPelosi, D-Cali
f., butseve n other
Congressional Record . Aftertheelectro nicvotingsystem wasinstalledin 1973,the Democra ts receivedvotes.Onsevera l occas
ionsmembershavevotedprese nt.
recorde d tellervoteprocess became knownsimply asa recorde d vote.Theadventof Useof the electronicvoting syste m openedthe poss ibilityof ghostvoting in
recorded tellervotes,and then the electronic voting system,rendered the old whichanabse nt memberwould givehisvotingcardtoa colleague. Such instances
unrecorded teller votes essentiallyobsolete. Howeve r, unrecor dedtellervotingstill are rare, but the House has bannedthe practice by rule and hasdisciplined
remainedasa potential fallbac k option in therulesuntil itsformalabolitionin 1993 . membe rssusp ectedof violations.Occas ionally,a membermight be seenhanding a
Whenmembers'votes first began toberecordedin theCommittee of theWhole votingcard to his orher child to castthevote,which lsalsoagainsttherules.
on amendmentsand other motions, onlytwenty members wererequired to stand Nomembe r may bedeprivedof hisor her right to vote.Houserulesdirect
anddema nd a recordedvote.Thisnumber waslater raise d to twenty-fivein 1979 membersto refrainfromvotingonan issue ontheHousefloor if theyhavea conflict
aftersomemember s complainedthat it wastooeasyto forcevotes.Buttherehas of interest. Therulesalsoadmon ish members in a Code of Official Cond uct (Rule
been no evidencethatthe changeto twenty-five made anysignificantdifference. XXIIIin the 110th Cong ress)not to vote onthefloor or in committeesif theyhave
The requirement hasesse ntiallybeco mea formality,andrecordedvotesareoften been convictedof crimesforwhicha sentenceof twoor moreyears imprisonment
requested andgrantedwith fewer thantwenty-fivemembers in thechamber. maybe imposed. Compliance with theserulesis strictly at the discr
etion of the
In the Committee of the Whole, unlikethe House, there is no meansto forcea member affected.However, convictedmemberswho havecontinuedto votein such
voteautomaticallybyclaimingthat a quorum(onehundred)isnot present. Insuch circumstanceshavebeenthreatened with expulsion.
cases,a memberusually demandsa recordedvoteand,pendingthat,makesthe
point of order thata quorum is not prese nt.Bydoing sothe membergainstime to SENATE
ensure the presence of at leasttwenty-fivesupp orterswhenthe chair annou nces Only twotypesofvotesarein everydayusein theSenate- voicevotesandroll-call
whethersufficient suppo rt existsfor a recordedvote.If a quorum isnot present,the votes(yeasandnays). Standingvotesareseldomemployed.TheSenate doesnot
chairorders a quorumcalltoestab lish one beforedetermi ning whether twenty-five usethetellervoteandhas noelectronic votingsystem.
memb erssuppor t thedemand for a reco rdedvote.Thechair hastwo choices:to Asin theHouse,themostcommonmethod of deciding issuesis byvoice vote.
order a regular quorum call, whichsummonsall 435membe rs, whosenamesare The presid ing officer determinestheoutcome . Under the Constitution,one-fifth of
recorded in the Congressional Recordafterthe vote;or a "notice quorum call," in the sena torsprese nt must supporta demandfor a roll call.(Unlike the House,the
whichthe chair simply stopsthe proceedin gsafterone hundredmembers have Senate assumes that anactualquorum - fifty-one-is presentwhenthis demand
respo ndedandnopermanentrecord of thoseresponding is kept. isbeing made,soa minimumof eleven senators mustriseinsupport.Whe n a request
In many cases, to savetime,enoughmembers riseinformally to indicatetheir fora rollcalloccursimmed iately aftera roll callora livequorumcallhasoccurred, the
support fora recorded votewhile the chair is still countingfor a quorum.The point numberneededisone-fifth of thesenators who respo nded,toa maximumof twenty.
of no quorum then is withdrawn anda recordedvoteoccurs.If both thequorum call Informa l practiceshaveevolvedinwhich a votemay beorderedbythechairif onlya
and then the recorded voteare used,the quorum call is fifteenminuteslong, fewsena torsare presentand the twoparties'floormanag ersagree.)
followed,if ordered,bya reco rdedvote,which the chairmayreduce to fiveminutes. Unlike theHouse, where a demand for a roll-callvotecomes only whendebate
Before theelectronicvoting system wasinstalled, yeasandnaysweretaken by hasbeenconcludedand thechair hasput the question,senatorsmaydemandthe
callingthe roll,a time-consu mingprocess in the435-memberHouse.Eachrollcall yeasand naysonpendingbusinessata time longinadvance ofthevote.The Senate
tookabout half an hour.TheSpeake r still retainsthe right to callthe rollinsteadof usuallyallowsfifteen minutesfor a roll-callvote, although unanimous consent
using theelectro nicvotingsyste
m.Theold-fashio nedmethodmay beusedwhenthe requests may shorten the voting time in specificsituations. The fifteen-minute
electronicsystembreaks down,asit hasfrom time to time.An archaic provision still period alsomaybeextendedto acco mmodatelate-arriving senato rs.Senatorswho
existsin the rulesthatallowsthe Speake r to directthe clerk to"tell"themembers by missa votecannot be recor ded afterthe result hasbeenannounced . However,
namein theHouse.In practice,theonly timeeach member 'snameiscalledisonthe unlikethe House , a senator whovotedbut wasnot recorded or wasincorrectly
openingdayof eachCongress whenthe clerkcallseach nameto electa Speake r. recordedmay,byunanimous consent,havethe prope r voterecordedif it would not
Membe rs shoutout the nameof theperson theysupport. Usuallythereare only two changetheresult.

vVashington University. 18 ·:rhc Repub lican -led Rules Co1nn1it-
tee offered another 1neasure of what it tern1ed the ne\v "spirit
of openness an d ac countability ." Accord ing to the panel, 8 10
an1end1nents \\1ere considered during the entire 111th Con -
gress . In j us t the first seven n1o n ths of the 112th Cong ress,
accord ing to the Rules Co mn1ittee , 437 amend n1ents had
been considere d .
Th e kinds of restr ictive rules vary consi de rably. The
Rules Com1nittee may si1nply require tha t amendments \\1ill
b e in orde r on ly if th ey have been printed in the Congressional

Copyr ighted materia l

98 HO W CONGRESS WORKS
Record in adva n ce of the debate . Th is p ract ice n1ay increase
th e number of amendments , not reduce them. "When you see
you are fixin' to be cut off and not be able to have an oppor -
tunity to offer an amendment you start con j ur ing up all pos -
sible amend m en ts and you put then1 in the Record," Lott
said . ' 9 But advance notice does help the leade rsh ip anticipate
floo r act io n an d deve lop st rategy to deal \vith it.
StructuredRules
A structure d rule is a rule that can have 1nany different fonns .
It usually can b e anything other than a si1nple open rule b ut
its principa l purpose is to supply a sense of order on the floor
as amendments are offered and debated in the Committee of
th e vVh ole. Such ru les n1ay specify th e an1endn1e n ts that can
be offered, by \vhon1, an d, so1neti1nes, in 1.vhat order they 1.vill
be consi dere d. Structured r ul es 1nay also set time limits on
debate for the a1nen dments . Most such ru les are restrictive in
th at they prevent members fron1 offering some amendments.
Ho,vever , structured rules may also be expansive , by making
it in orde r for the House to cons ider amend1nents that are not
gern1ane to the bill. They n1ay atte 1npt to focus debate around
ent ire su bst itutes for a b ill, instead of nun1erous n1inor per-
fecting an1cn dn1ents . T h is invar iably happens durin g cons id-
erat ion of th e congressional budget res olu ti on, because
debate th ere deals w ith b roa d issues of policy an d ph ilosop hy,
n ot th e nuts and bo lts of progran1s .
In the 1980s and 1990s, as party leade rs tr ied to eng i-
n eer policy outcomes on the floo r 1vithout denying ran k-
and-filc men1bers the abi lity to offer and vote on alternatives,
th ey began to use highly styl ized rules that ensured their biJls
1.vould pass intact.
"King-of-the
-HillRules"
The granddaddy of those hig hly stylized structured rules is
known as the "k ing-of-t h e-h ill rule." First used in 1981, it
made in order a series of alternatives to the bill under cons id-
erat ion and prov ided that even if a n1ajority votes for t\vo or
1nore of the alternatives, only the last one voted on wins.
This procedure circumvented I-louse rules that prohibi t
amending any portion of a bill that has already been
an1ended . Under the normal rules, if a substitute for a bill is
offered and adopted as an amendment, fu rth er substitutes or
ot h er a1nend111ents are precluded and th e House moves to
fina l passage . But king-of-the -hill rules allo\V a111en dments to
cont inu e to be offered .
In cases in 1.vh ich th e alternative favored by the n1ajority
leadership \Vas sure of winning, this procedure provided a
1neans to satisfy various factions ,.vithin th e I-louse by letting
the1n present , and the members vote on, their alternatives .
In cases in 1\1hich the o utco111e 1vas uncertain, positioning
th e p referred alternat ive last could give it an edge over its
con1peti tors.
Minori ty Republicans bristled ,vhen De1nocrats en1pl oyed
the tool, arguing that it allo\ved la\vrnakers to vote for, and
ca111paign on their suppo r t of, an1end111en ts tha t would ulti -
111ately die at t he hands of a comp lex ru le they
supported .
"It is a con1plex 1nach i11ation that in this case, as in
every case, stac ks the deck aga inst the adoption of any of th e
an1endn 1en ts offered;' Rep. Por ter Goss , R-Fla., explained
dur ing deba te of a k ing-of -th e- hill rule in 1994 . "We are giv-
ing cover to me111bers to say they voted for so111ething that
they thought their people 1.vanted back in their district . But
\\1hen it can1e really to the end , th e las t vote th ey ha d to vote
for is the one tha t the n1ajorit y party v.ranted in th e first place,
the party position, and that is the one they vote for to be
members of the party and adhere to the discip line in their
party pos it ion ." According to a Congressional Research Ser-
vice ( CRS) report in 2008, king -of- the -h ill p rocedures ,vere
authorized in sixty -thr ee rul es bet\vee n 1981 a nd 1994 .
"Queen
-of-the-Hill Rules"
A variat ion that replaced king-of-the-hill in the 104th Con-
gress is son1etimes referred to as the "queen -of -the-h ill rule ."
As in king -of- the -h ill r ules, several substi tut es for a b ill can
be voted on in successio n, and a n1ajor ity vote for any on e of
the111docs not result in the tcrn 1ination of the a111endin g
p rocess . Ho,vever, instead of endorsing the last such a111end-
111ent considered that received a n1ajori ty, under qu een -of -
the -hill rules, th e a1nend 1nent that passe d \Vith the largest
nu1nb er of affirn1ative votes, after voting on all substitutes,
prevails. If nvo a1nendrnents received an equal nu1nber of
aff inn at ive votes, the last o ne voted on \Vins.
Rules Co1nn 1ittee cha ir Geral d S0lo1non, R- N.Y., argued
tha t king -of-th e-hill rules 1vere flawed b ecause they "allo1ved
la,.v1nakers to b e on b oth sides of an issue an d violated the
den1ocratic principle that the position ,vith the strongest sup-
port should prevai1!' 20 Q u een-of-the-hill ru les, similar to
king-of-the-hill r ules, allo,v the leadership to appease various
factions and allow men1bers to vote on va r ious sides of a
quest ion . For examp le, dur ing consideratio n in 1997 of
a const itut iona l amend m en t lin1iting the n un1ber of years a
111en
1ber cou ld serve in Co ngress, eleven substitute a111end -
n1ents 1vere 111ade in ord er und er the quee n -of-the-h iJI p ro-
cess so that men1bers from pa r ticular states could vote for the
cong ressiona l tern1 lin1it schen1e adopted by those states .
(Atte111pts by states to li111
i t the tenns of n1en1bers of Con -
gress by statute 1.verelater thr own out by the U.S. Supre n1e
Court, thus ne cessitat in g a change in the U.S. Constitutio n to
accon1p lish the purpose.) All of th e subs ti tutes were rejecte d ,
as \Vas the constitutional a1nend1nent itself . T h e qu een -of-
the -hill process ,.vas util ized six ti 1nes in th e 104th , 105th, and
107th Congresses, according to the CRS report. It has not
been used since .
Self-ExecutingRules
Another inn ovative 1necha nis1n th at Rules beg an to use in the
1980s v.ras the self-executing r ule, under \vhich adoption of
Copyrighted materia l

the rul e also resulted in adoption of an an1en dn1ent or
an1endn1cnts . Self-executing rule s were devised o rigina lly to
expedite consideration of Senate-passed a1nendmen ts to
House bills and to 1nake technical corrections, but they have
also been used to enact n1ore substanti ve and controvers ial
n1easu res.
In 1987, for example, a vote for a ru le on a continuing
appropriations resolut ion also had the effect of excluding
1ne1nbers of Congress frorn a controversial pay raise. A vote
for a ru le on another continuing resol ution earlier in the year
,,vas also a vote to pr ovide $3.5 bill ion in hun1anita r ian
assistance to Nicaraguan contras fighting the Sandinista
government there. The move , \\•hich was supported by the
leadership of both parties, avoided a direc t vote on the
cont rovers ial issue of continued aid to the con tras. The ru le
1,va
s adopted by voice vote.
In 1990, passage of a conference report on a 1najor
immigration bill was unexpected ly threatened ,vhen opp osi-
tion develop ed to o ne of its provisions, lead ing to defea t of
the r ule. A second rule was then prepared and passed that
self-executed adoption of a concurren t resolut ion changing
the offend ing section of the conference repo r t. Once the
Senate sent a n1essage that it had adopted the concurrent
reso lu tion, t he conference report, as nc,vly 1nod ified, was
im 1ned iately available under th e ter1ns of the ru le for consid -
eration in the I-louse. It th en passed.
In Februar y 2010, faced \\•ith an unpopular vote to raise
the d ebt ceiling , Ilouse leaders packaged the debt ceiling
increa se with legislation to in1pose pay-as-you-go budget
r ules tha t ,vould require Congress to offset ne,v entitlen1ent
spending or tax cu ts to avoi d increasing th e deficit. Then, the
Rules Committee drafted a self- execu ting r ul e that included
language au tom atically approving the debt li1nit increase .
Adoption of the ru le also served to approve the debt limit
increase.
Republicans blas ted the maneuver as a schem e to sh ield
Den1ocrats fron1 accountabil ity. "Th is is a legislative sleight of
hand to protect n1cn1bers:' wfinori ty Leader Boc h ner said . "It
is the kin d of back roon1 deal the A n1erican people don 't
l I"kC.» 2 1
Just a month later, House Democratic leade rs seriously
cons ide red using a self-execut ing r ule to pass the final vers ion
of the health care overh aul bill, but scrapped that idea in the
face of wither ing conden1nation fro1n conservatives - both in
Co ngress and elsewhere. T h ey co1npla ine d that the so-called
Sla ugh ter r ule- nan1ed after Rules Con11nittee chair Louise
NL Slaughter, D -N.Y.- ,vhich \vould dee1n the Senate version
of th e b ill to be passed by the House upon its adoption of the
rule, would be an affront to the Constitutional require1nent
that both chambers pass the san1e version of the bill.
HouseFloorProcedures
Procedural differences behveen th e House and Senate are
n1ost visible on the chamber floors. Because of its size, the
c h ap t er 2 THE LEGIS
LATIVEPROCESS 99
House ad heres st r ictly to deta iled procedures for cons idering
legislation. 1' hese procedures, whic h lin1it debate on bills and
an1endn1ents, are designed to ensure 1najority rul e an d to
expe d ite action . Al though the opposition can slo,v legislation
from tin1e to ti1ne in the House, it usually can n ot in1pede it
altogethe r. It is often said that the House 1nin o ri ty can delay,
bu t not deny . In cont ra st, the n1uch sn1allcr Senate en1pha-
sizes n1inority rights and virtually un lin1ited debate.
Historica lly, the House has operate d on a Nlon day- or
Tuesday -to-Thursday schedule, ivith the first day of th e legis -
lative week reserved pritnarily for noncontroversial legislation
considered under sh ortcut procedures such as suspension of
the ru les. Sessions occasionally are scheduled for Friday , an d
n1ore rarely on Saturday or Sunday , but that day is often left
free so that legislators can return to the ir distr icts for the
,\ 1eekend . In the I 12th Co ngress, GOP leaders announced a
schedule that called for more Monday -through -Fr iday ,vork-
1\•eeks, combined ,\•ith more complete weeks out of session to
be devoted to ,vork in men1bers' home d istricts .
Meeting times no,v va ry. Daily sessions 1nay begin at
any hour, al though earl ier daily n1eetings are co1nn1on as a
sess ion p rogre sses . After son1e prel in1inary activ ities (see box,
A 'Typical Schedule in the House, p. 86), the House turns to the
legislative bus iness of the day. If the House is to take up leg-
islation under its shor tcut procedures, it ren1ains sitting as
the House, with the Speaker presiding. The rules for consi d -
ering and passing legislation un der th ese expediting pro ce-
dures have been described above. Most major legislation,
ho,vever, comes to th e House floor under a specia l ru le and is
subject to a n1uch 111.ore elabora te proce dur e. T h e process
involves four steps: adoption of the rule governit1g debate on
the bill, general debate on th e bill itsel f, considera ti on of any
a1nendments it1 the Co1nmittee of the \rVhole, and fu1al pas-
sage of the bill by the full I-louse.
Adoption
of theRule
Floor action on a 1najo r House bill ord inar ily beg ins ,vhen
the Spea ker recog nizes the n1en1ber of the Rules Co n1mittee
1vho has been designa ted to call up the ru le for the b ill. T he
ru le rnay be debated fo r up to one hour, \Vith, by custon1, half
the time allotted to the n1inor ity party . A simple majority is
sufficient to adopt a r ule .
Rules are seldorn rejected. In 1987 the House voted
203 - 217 to rejec t the rul e for considera tion of budget recon-
ciliat io n legislat ion because it in cluded the tex.t of a n1ajor
welfare reforn1 bill. Th e Den1ocratic leadership real ized that
it had 1nade a p oliti cal er ror by overloa dit1g the process ,vitl1
too 1nany divisive issues at once. The Rules Co1nmit tee
revised the rule by dropping the ,velfare provisions.
Den1ocrats ' inab ility to pass a rule on the 1994 crime
bill became a metap h or for their disintegr ating n1ajority. And
Republicans, kno,,vn for th eir strict d iscip line on parliamen -
tary votes under Speaker Has tert , nonethe less lost a vote on
the rule for a bill th at ,vould have n1ade it 1nore difficult for
Copyrighted n1aterial
106 HOW CO NGRESS WOR KS
pend ing legislation during the orig ina l an1endment p rocess
or if a n1inori t·y proposa l was considered po ten tially popula r
enoug h to pass. The House Republicans, while in the n1ino r-
ity for four decades p rior to 1995, oft en used a reco 1n111ittal
1notion with ins tructions lo present th eir alternative to the
Democrat ic-crafted leg isla tion be ing cons idered. They
round ly cr iticized the constrai nt s unde r rules governing
recon1n1ittals tha t they co nsidered a denial of basic rights and
frequently appealed ru lings of the Spea ker on thi s issue but
always lost.
When Repu blicans gained control of tbe 1-louse in 1995,
tl1e ne\v n1ajority effectively wip ed out the earlier precede nts
that bad allowed the Rules Co,nmittee to preve nt a 01otio11to
reco111.n1 il with instructions fro1n being offered to bills and
jo in t reso luti ons, and ii an, cndecl I-louse rules to guarantee
that right to the minority leader or the 1ninor ity leader's cles-
ignee. In th is respec t, the Republicans increased th e rights of
the Den1ocratic n1ino rity beyond what they the,nselves had
enjoyed. I lov.,ever, other parliamentary restrictions may still
app ly to such a motion, such as the requireme nt tha t amen -
datory instructions be germane to the underly ing bill.
De,nocrats appeared to acknowledge, a l their own peril ,
the importance of giv ing th e n,inority an opp o rtunity lo
reco1nn1it bills when they won control of the House. Al the
s tart of the I I 0t h Congress, n1otions to recon1111it were
allowed, and Republicans used the111 repeate dly to pu t Den10-
cra ts on record on issues and amend legisla tion .
A rules change in the L11th Congress allowed for
deba te on a straight ,notion to rccon11nit, wh ich had no t
been debatable. A ,n otion to recon1n1it a bill or joint resolu -
tion with instructions rnay he debated for ten n1inutcs,
evenly d ivided, althoug h, since 1985, th e ,najor ity floo r ,nan -
ager - bu t not the minor ity floor manager - 1nay ask for up
to an hour of debate, which is th en div ided evenly between
the two sides. That change was a direct resul t of a n,otion by
Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif ., in Septembe r 1984 to recommit
th e fiscal 1985 continuing appropr iatio ns resolution with
instructions to acid to it a Senate-passed cri111c bi ll. The
House version o f the crin,c bill had been bott led up in the
Judiciary Con 1111 it1ec. The 111otion was deba ted for ten
1n inu1es, and th e House, 10 the n1ajorit y leade rsh ip's emba r-
rassm en t, adopt ed it on a vo te of 243 166. The continuing
reso lution was then passed, and the crunc package was
eventually enacted.
Another cxa,nplc of an1cnding strategy and clever use
of the n1otion to rccon1n1it occurred in 1995 when Massa-
chu setts Den1ocrat Edward J. Markey offered a n1otion to
reco,n,n it a teleco n11nunicat ions b ill, with instructions to
include a provision ,nandat ing use of V- ch ip circu itry in
televisions to allow parents to contro l ,nore effect ively their
children 's viewing habits. 1vlarkey had earlier offered a per-
fcctu1g an,e ndn, ent to the bill in the Comm ittee of th e \\/ho le
to acco rnp l ish th is, but h e had been prevente d fro n1 getting a
direct vote when h is proposa l was altered by adoption of a
l
second -deg ree Repub lican-sponsored an1endn 1ent. The
Republican proposal enco ura ged, bu t d id no t requi re, the
new tech n ology.
Howe ver, use of the ,n o tion to re co n11nit in the Ho use
offered Nlarkey , in effect, a "second bite of the apple " under
parl iamen tary c ircumstances when a coun terproposal
could not b e offered. Now rorced to go 011the record in an
up-or-d own vote on Markey 's popular p lan, the House
effectively reversed its earlier vote and adopte d the n1anda -
tory rcqu ire111ent.
These victories ,vcre once unusu al because few con tro -
versial rcconuni ttal ,notions arc ever adopted . 1\ co,npctent
,najority can usually ant icipate and head off such dangers
before a bill is rep orted or through the an1endn1en 1 process
on the noor as they a 1tcn1p1ed to do, ulti1nately unsuccess -
fully, in the 1vfarkcy case.
But in the I 10 th Congress, 1ninority Republicans used
the mo tion to offer targeted and po litically popu lar changes
to legislotion that Dernocrats were forced to accept or twis t
,1rm s to defeat.
In 2007 alone, the GO P was successfu l on twenty-one
,notions to recon11nit. In cont rast, during the prcced ing
do:,,;enyears, th e Den1ocratic n1inori1y had won fourteen ou t
of 349 a1te111pts.
Beyond that , Republicans rnade clever use of the effective
difference ben vcen a ,notio n to reco111n1it "promptly " and a
,no tion to recon1mit "for thwith ." A n1otion to rcconun it a bill
to con11nittee with i.nstructions to "pron1ptly" report back the
cha nges s pecified in the n1otion effectively ,nean l that the
com111it1ec would have to hold a bus iness n1cc1ing 10 approve
the changes. ln practice , that n1ea111that th e bill was seriously
delayed, or killed entire ly. On the other hand, a ,notion 10
reco,nmit a bill to co,nmi ttee ,vith instructions to "forthw ith"
report back tl1e changes speci.fied in the n1otion mean t that the
ne,v language would be automatically added to the bill and it
would in11ncdiatcly con,e up for another floor vote .
The majority Dc,nocrats closed tha t op tion in the 11 I th
Congress, adopting a new rule th at requires that ,no tions lo
reco 1n1nit n1ust include instruc tions tha t the 1neasurc be
re turned lo th e floor " forthwith;' n1caning the House n1ust
vole on the a1nended bill within rninu tes.
If the m otion lo recommi t is rejected, the next step is
the vote on final passage. If the bilJ is passed , a pro for ma
,notion to reconsider the final vote is usually offorcd . t\ sup-
porter of the bill then offers a counler111otion lo lay the
111otionon the table, or kill recons ideration, thus safeguard -
ing final passage. 1vfo re often, the Speaker will simply say,
"\V ith o ut object ion th e niotion to reconsi der is laid upon the
tab le." Wit h that, the bill is considered to be forrnally passed
by the I louse. At this po int, the biU officially becomes an ac t,
although it generally still is referred to as a bill.
An eng rossed copy of the bill, including changes 1na dc
during floor act ion, is certified in its final fonn by the clerk of
the I louse and trans rnitted to the Senate for its conside ra tio n.
176 HOW CON GRESS W O RKS
Chair J.Wi llian1 Fulb r ight, D -Ark., in 1974 because of a seri es
of 1~>eakcha irs and its co n tinui ng inab ility to pass its majo r
b ill au th or izing fo reig n aid. Afte r Rep ublicans took co n tro l in
J.995 ac tivist conservative cha ir Jesse Hehns, R-N .C., bro ught
grea ter vis ib ility to the pa n el, but it ren1ain ed unde sira ble to
n1ost n1en1bers. The dep ar tu re of He ln1s an d th e on set of th e
,.vars in Afghan istan an d Iraq so n1e1.vhat reve rsed that tre n d.
vVh ile other panels \Vax a nd wane , App ropr iatio ns,
Finance, an d \.Yays and /\!l ean s have never b een 1.vholly
eclipsed beca use th ey con t rol th e flo,.v of 1noney into an d o ut
of federal coffers . In the 1980s an d 1990s th ese taxing an d
spending con1mittees ,vere th r ust to the center of action 1nore
than ever before by Congress's increasing tendency to pile
most of its leg islat ive ,vork onto a han d ful of fiscal measures .
COMMITTEE
PROCEDURES
Commi tt ee procedures are regulate d by Senate and I-louse
r ules tha t inco r porate many of the provisions in the Legisla -
tive Reorganizat ion Acts of 1946 and 1970 an d oth er n1ea-
sures . In n1any cases these rules serve to p ro tect m in or ity
r igh ts and th e r igh ts of v1ritn esses at co1nn1i ttee hea r ings.
One of the basic goals of th e 1946 act \\'aS to sta n da rd ize
con 1n1ittee p rocedu res in regard to hav ing regular n1eet ing
days, keep ing co n1n1ittee records and votes , repo rt ing legisla -
tion, req uir ing a 1najority of co1nmit tee mem b ers to be in
attendan ce as a con d ition of transa cting con1mit tee business ,
and follo,ving set proce d ures during hearings .
The 1946 rules v11ere not uniformly observed by all com-
rn ittees . T h e contin u i.ng d issat isfac tion \Vith con1 m ittee op er-
ations led in th e 1970 reorganiza t ion ac t to fur th er efforts to
reform co1nmi tt ee proce du res, par ticularl y to rn ake the111
more de1nocratic and acc o unta bl e to th e membership and
th e public . T h e I.J:ouse has more restr ictive provisions than
th e Senate , bu t the ma jor ity st ill has broad flexib ility in run -
ning a comn1 ittee's busi n ess. (See box, Congress Adapts t'o
Demand s f or Greater Transpa rency, p . 177.)
Senate a nd House con11nittees are req u ired to establi sh
and p ublish r ules of p roced ur e. (In gen eral, sec H·ouse Rule
XI and Senate Rule XXVI.) Each chan 1ber's stan d ing co1nn1it-
tees also m ust fix regular 1neetin g days, alt h o ugh chairs are
au th or ized to call add itio n al n1eet in gs and set an agenda . In
addit io n, the rules n1ust con tain procedu res u nd er ,vhic h a
con1n1ittee majo ri ty n1ay call a meet ing if th e chair fails to do
so, eve n tho ugh use of s uch a pr oce d ure ,~1o uld b e a se rio us
affront to a chai r. Ho use rul es also allov11 a co1nn1 itt ee 1najor -
ity using th is pro cess to place ite1ns of its choosing on th e
agenda .
An at te1npt to un dercut a chair's au th ority over co1n-
m ittee mee t ings ,vas made in th e Sena te Foreign Relations
Commit tee in 1997 afte r Chair Jesse Helms dec lared his
refusa l to ho ld a hea ring on President Clinton' s non1ination
of Massachuse tts gover n or \ ·Villian1 We ld to b e a1nbassado r to
i\1exico . He ln1s was adan1a n tly opposed to the m oderate
Weld, eve n thoug h he was a fcllo,v Repu blican, for a variety
of p h iloso phi cal reaso ns. It ap peare d likely that a n1ajo rity of
b oth th e co1nn1ittee and th e Senate ,.vould confir1n \!Veld if
allowed to vo te. A con1n1ittee n1ajor ity ,vas a ble to force
Hel n1s to conven e a n1eet ing but ,vas u na ble to take co ntr o l
of the age n da away fro n1 h in1. ,.vith the Senate pa rlian1ent a r-
ian sitti ng nea r h i1n , Hel ms allo,.ved no debate o n th e \,Veld
non 1inatio n and spent 1nost of th e 111 .eet ing de no u nciJ1g b is
opp onen ts. The ep iso de illustr at ed how littl e Sena te tra di-
tions ha ve cha nged despite refor1ns of the r ules. Sena tors are
still unw illing to push pov11erful colleagues too far.
Commi ttees ,.vere re quired by the 1970 act to keep tran-
scripts of their meetings and to make pu blic all roll -call votes .
In the House the rules requ ire tha t info nnat ion abou t con 1-
m ittee vo tes be n1ade ava ilable to th e p ublic a t the con1n1it-
tees' offices an d, as of the 112th Congress, also electronicall y.
The commit tees are direc ted to provide a description of each
amendn1en t, n1otion, order , or o ther propos ition voted on;
the name of each comm ittee member vo ting for or against
the issue ; a n d th e na n1es of those prese nt bu t n ot voting . T he
rules also requ ire that the resu lts of all votes to repor t legisla -
tion be p ub lished in the co n1111ittee rep or ts. (Sec House Ruic
X 1.2 ( e).)
In 1995 th e r ules ,vere further a1nen ded to req u ire th at,
on all votes con du cted in a co1111ni ttee mark u p on a repor ted
b ill or oth er matter rep orte d to the House, th e repor t con tain
the number of votes cast for or against an d h o1\1 ind ivid ual
1ncn1bers vote d.
In the Senate th e ru les are less sp ecific. T h ey req uire
that a co1nn1ittee's rep ort on a b ill incl ud e th e results of roll -
call votes on "any n1easure or any a1nend1nent th ereto " unle ss
the results have been announced previous ly by the comm it-
tee. Senate ru les require th at in reporting ro ll-call votes the
posit ion of each vot ing member is to be d isclosed (Senate
Rule XXVI.7(b)) .
The r ules stipulate that it is the chai r's du ty to see to it
that legisla tion app rove d by h is or h er con1n1ittee is repo rt ed.
And a co1nn1i ttc e n1ajo rity has access to p roced ures to force a
bi ll o ut of co111n1
itt ee if the chai r refuses to b r ing it up for
cons iderat ion or to repo r t it after th e con11nittee has ac ted
favo rably (XXVI. lO(b) ). T h e r ules proh ibit a co n1m ittee fron1
repo r ting a ny n1easu re u n less a n1ajor ity of its n1embers a re
prese n t. Me n1bers \Vere allo,vcd tin1e to fil e sup ple n1cn ta l a nd
1nin or ity vie\VSfor inclu sio n in con 11nittee reports, b ut in th e
House Rep ubl ican s restr icted th e n1inorit y's long -stan d ing
rights to ha ve three full days fo!lo ,.ving the vote on rep ortin g
a bill to su b1nit them . In 199 7 the ru le ,vas amen d ed to redu ce
the ti1ne by counting th e day in ,.vhich the commit tee or d ere d
a bill rep orted as the firs t day.
House ru l es requ ire committees and su bcomn1i tt ees to
announce hear ings at least o ne wee k in adva nce unless the
chair an d ranking n1i.norit y rnember jointl y, or the co1nn1itte e
Copyrighted material
 ch apt er 3 THECOMM
ITTEESYST
EM 177

CoNGREss ADAPTSTO DEMANDSFOR GREATERTRANSPARENCY

In the late 1990sCong ress continued the processof adapting to demands for diminisheduseof conference committee s, long delaysin the publica tion of
greaterpublic accessto its proceedings that beganwith "sunshine" rulesin the committeereports, and the expanded role of leade rship in legislative drafting
1970srequiring open committee andconferencecommit teemeetings.Themedia continuesthe long-standingpracticeof hidden information andhidden decision
alsogainedvirtually unfetteredaccessto committee hearingsand meetings. making.AsEllen Miller,executive
directorof the Sunlight Foundation,put it:"I don't
Theinitialsunshinereformswerepart of aneffort to improveCongress 's image, think Congresshaseverbeen a terriblyopeninstitution.It'sasif it erecteda firewall
whichhad suffered dramatic reversals after a seriesof widely publicizedscan dals. around its information a longtime ago,and therehasbeena continual cultural
Theywere further acceleratedby the public's disgus t for exce
ssivegovern ment ry fashion."1
resistance to providinginformationin a timely manner,contempora
secrecyasrevealedbytheWate rgatescanda l inthe 1970sthatled to theresignation
SUNSHINE
RULES
of Preside nt Richard M.Nixon. Proponentsmaintained that openmeeting s helped
protec t the publicintere
stand madelawma kersmoreaccou ntable to the electorate. TheLegislativeReo rganization Actof 1970 took the firststepstowardmore open
During the 1980stherewassomeretreat from the reforms,including votes by a committeemeetingsand hearingsand requiredthat allHouseandSena tecommitt ee
number of keypanels to closetheir doorsduring consideration of majorlegislation. roll-callvotesbemadepublic.Th e Housein 1973voted to requirethat allcommittee
Votesto closecommitteeshadto be conductedin opensession bya roll callwith a sess ionsbeopenunlessa majority of the committeevotedin public to closethem.
quorum present. The HouseWaysandMeans Commi ttee,perhapsthe most heavily The Senate adopteda similar rule in 1975. Both chambers in 1975voted to open
lobbiedcommit teein the House,choseto close its doorsto write such landmark conferen cecommi tteesessio ns,unlessa majority of the conferees
of either chamber
legislation asa historictax-overhaul bill in 1985and tradeandcatast rophicillness votedin public to closea session .TheHouse amendedthis rule in 1977to require a
insurancebillsin 1987.Waysand Means chairDan Rostenkowski, D-111.,argued: "lt's reco rdedvotebythefullHousetoclose aconfere ncecommitteemeeting.Conf erences
just difficult to legislate.I'mnot asha medaboutclosed doors. Wewantto getthe havebeenclosed for legislation dealing with sensitive intelligenceand national
productout." 1 Other pane ls-n otably HouseAppropriationssubcommi ttees- secur ity matters.Withthe vastmajority of hearingsnowopenthisissuehasrece ived
alsomet privatelytodraftlegislation.Sometimescommittees ' decisionswere made little attentionover the last decade,with the except ionsbeingtheadvisability of
by smallgroupsof members behind thescenesand then ratifiedin opensession. closed hearingsregarding the Sept ember11,2001 , attacksandtheIraqWar.
Defendersof close d sessionsargued thatcomm itteemembersweremorecandid,
markupsmore expe ditious,and betterlawswritten awayfrom lobbyists ' glare. BROADCASTS
Effortsto institutionalizeapatternofexce ptionsto therulesfailed,however , inthe While theSenate hada longtraditionof broadcasting hearings , the Housedidnot
faceof continuingpublic susp icionsabout theoperationsof Congress andthe ability sanctionsuchbroadcasts until passageof the 1970reorganiza tion act.In 1974 it
of special interest groupstoinfluen cethelegislativeprocess.
In 1995,after Republicans decidedto allowbroadcasts of markup meetings aswell.The Sena te left decisions
tookcontroloftheHouse,theruleswerefurtheramendedto preventcommitteesfrom on broadcast coverageto its committees.The Housefor many yearsset more
closingtheir sessions
merely forthe sakeofconv
enience.Committeeswishing to close stringent standards for broadcas t coverage of hearings or bill-drafting sess ions,
hadto determinebyroll-callvotethat disclosure
of testimo
ny or othermattersto be considering it a special privilege to be grantedor denied, but the Housewas
cons ideredwould endanger nationalsecurity,compro misesens itivelawenforce ment eventually forced to stopcherry-pickingreques ts for media access. Houserules
informa tion, or tend to defame, degrade,or incrimin ate any pers on. TheHouse wereamendedin 1995to require thatall open committeesessio ns beopenedto
Com mitteeonStandardsof Official Conduct (nowEthics)wasexem ptedfrom these presscove rage,including radio and television broadcasts,without the need for
requirementsin 1997.In 2011,an amended House rule(XI2(e)) furtherrequiredthat special permission.Televised broadcasts of floor deba
te began intheHouse in 1979
reportsand votesalsobemadeavailableelectron ically. and in the Senate in 1986.(Seebox,Televised FloorDebatesHereto Stay,p.82.)
Despite all theseefforts,criticsstill claimthat too much of whatis done by
committees,and Congress moregenerall y,remains hiddenfrom thepublic.In the 1 Jacqueline Calmes:Fading 'Sunshine' Reforms:few Complaints Are
aftermathof the Septembe r 11 attacksandattendant to the global war on terror, Voiced as Doors Closeon Capitol Hill,"CQWeekly,May 23,1987. 1059- 1060.
Iibrary.cqpress.com
/ cqweekly/WRI 0040l 008.
the proceed ingsof theArmed Servicescommi tteesand the Intelligencecommittees 2 Tim Starks:A Dome under Lockand Key; CQWeekly , December 1,
have becomemoresecret ive. Buteven outside of thenational secu rity realm,the 2008,3192.

THIS IS THE END OF THE STUFF ON SUNSHINE -

THE NEXT PAGE DOESN"T MENTION IT

itself by vote , set a shor ter period. A Republica n proposal to JURISDICTIONAL

give this po1ver to the chair alone ,~1as successfully resisted by
the n1inority in 1995. ln n1ost circu n1stances con1n1ittces are
requ ired to cond uct n1cetings an d hearings in open sessio n
and to require 1~ 1itnesses to fiJe \Vritten sta temen ts in advance .
The rules al101-v 1ninority party n1embers to call \\1 itnesses
du ring at least one day of hearin gs on a subject.
CONFLICTS
Mos t bill referrals to committees are routine 1natt.ers han dled
by th e parliamentar ians of each chan1ber. Con1mittee jur is-
dictions out.lined in House Rule X and Senate Rule XXV as
,veil as precedents norn1ally dict ate ,vhere a bill is sent. But
someti.tnes th ings are no t so clear-cut.

Copyrighted material