The Lawmaking Process

Centeralized Congressional Leadership

American Politics
© Marc A. Triebwasser
 

As we have seen in our discussion of the lawmaking process, committees play an extremely important role in the functioning of Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation on the 1780s, committees had originally played a significant role in the Continental Congress in handling the various administrative affairs of the national government. Although under the Constitution, Congress no longer had these executive or administrative functions to perform, committees continued to play a major role in congressional operations.

When Congress was first organized under the Constitution in 1789, a number of committees came to be formed to handle individual pieces of legislation. Later, these special committees were replaced by standing committees which dealt with specific functional activities of the national government. As the role of the federal government has expanded, especially during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these committees have increased in number and importance.

To understand why committees play such a crucial role in the functioning of Congress, it is important to differentiate the way the committee structure operates in Congress from the way committees function in the average club or organization. Usually in most small organizations, business is carried out at regular meetings. At these meetings, either old or new business may be introduced or discussed by any member present.

At times, a particular matter requires more detailed information or discussion, and a committee is formed to look into this matter more fully and report back at a future general meeting. In some instances, organizations also establish standing committees, that is, committees which are designated in the bylaws of the organization and which function on an ongoing basis. In any event, whether we are talking about standing committees or special committees, the fact remains that most orders of business can be discussed at general meetings without their necessarily being reported on by a standing or special committee. Thus, it is the general meeting which has the greatest significance in most organizations.

This is not the case with Congress. Both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, committees have a far greater role than they do in most small organizations. As we have observed in our previous discussion, when a piece of legislation is introduced into either chamber of Congress, it is assigned for consideration to a specific committee or committees of that chamber. If those committees or one of their subcommittees does not act on the proposed legislation or acts on it unfavorably, the bill may never be reported to the floor. As the expression goes: "It dies in committee."

It is true that the House or the Senate acting as a unit theoretically has the power to dislodge a piece of legislation from a committee and cause it to be reported to the floor. However, this process is cumbersome and very tricky politically. Congresspersons are extremely jealous of their committees' jurisdictions and look most unfavorably at attempts of others to interfere with the business of their particular committee. For this reason, very few representatives or senators would vote to dislodge a bill from another congressperson's committee in the fear that such an action might eventually be used against them and their own committees.

If a committee decides to kill a bill, it dies there without much hope that the matter will ever get to be considered by the full House or Senate--even if the full body might be likely to approve the bill if it had a chance to discuss it. The significance of this point is that the vast majority of bills introduced into either chamber of Congress never get past the stage of being considered by committee. As we have already noted, 90 percent of the bills introduce into Congress die in committee.

House Committees

Both the House and the Senate have established a number of standing committees, some of which are more important than others. Since the House of Representatives is made up of 435 members, representatives tend to be appointed to fewer committees than are senators. The Senate, on the other hand, being made up of only 100 members, has fewer people to be assigned to the various committees. Senators are therefore given far more multiple committee appointments. For this reason, representatives often tend to be more expert in the specific areas handled by the committees to which they are assigned, while senators tend--more often than not--to become generalists.

The House Rules Committee. As we have seen in our discussion of the lawmaking process, the Rules Committee in the House of Representatives plays a major function. Each year thousands of bills are introduced into the House. Because of this and because of the size of the House's membership, it is necessary to have formal rules passed for each specific bill detailing how it will be discussed on the floor. It is the function of the House Rules Committee to develop such specific rules dealing with the agenda arrangements, as well as with other procedural arrangements important to the functioning of the House.

Since the Rules Committee plays such a major role in the legislative process and since it can easily serve as a stumbling block for legislation, the makeup of this committee is extremely important. Assignment to the House Rules Committee is thus seen as an extremely prestigious appointment. Only the more experienced representatives are to be found on this committee, usually those people who have a reputation for being moderates and for going along with party positions.

The House Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee is another extremely powerful committee in the House. The Ways and Means Committee is responsible for the handling of all tax matters and other matters relating to the raising of revenue in this chamber of Congress. Furthermore, as established by the Constitution, the House of Representatives was the branch of government which represented the people directly, whereas the Senate, as originally projected, was to represent the states. It was therefore left to the House to originate all tax bills. This arrangement is similar to conditions in the British Parliament, where all money bills have to originate in the House of Commons, rather than in the House of Lords.

It also reflects an important political sentiment widely felt during the Founding Period. As we noted, representatives in the House were chosen directly by the people, while senators were originally to be chosen by the state legislatures. Since the Revolutionary War was still fresh in many people's minds and since the slogan, "No taxation without representation," was very much a part of that experience, it is quite understandable that it would be left primarily to the most representative branch--that is, the House of Representatives--to deal with matter of taxation.

Thus, all matters regarding taxation must--at least theoretically--originate in the House Ways and Means Committee. If these pieces of legislation do not pass the Ways and Means Committee, They are not likely to be able to be discussed by Congress as a whole. There is, however, a loophole in this arrangement. The corresponding committee in the Senate to the House Ways and Means Committee is the Senate Finance Committee. Although the Senate cannot originate legislation dealing with taxation, it can amend bills that have been sent to it by the House. Since amendments can often be quite irrelevant to the original bill, this amending process in effect allows the Senate to "initiate" some tax legislation simply by adding whatever proposals they wish to bills already passed by the House. Thus, although the Senate and its Finance Committee cannot technically originate tax legislation, these bodies can get around this limitation in practice through the amending process.

In addition to the powers that the Ways and Means Committee has with regard to revenue matters, it also has had another major function during its history. Although the Republican party has always used a different procedure, from the 1910s through the 1970s the Democrats used their members on the Ways and Means Committee to act as their party's Committee on Committees. What this means is that the Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee, meeting by themselves, were responsible for deciding the committee assignments for their fellow Democrats for all of the various committees in the House of Representatives. This was indeed an important function. Since the House Ways and Means Committee serves very important revenue functions, it is understandable that it is also made up of members of the House who have served for some time and who are generally considered to be party regulars.

The House Appropriations Committee. Although as originally established, the Ways and Means Committee was supposed to handle legislation relating to both the raising and spending of funds, over time the work involved in these matters became too great for one committee to handle. For this reason, in the mid 1800s, matters relating to the spending of funds were assigned to a new committee: the House Appropriations Committee. The work of the Appropriations Committee and its various subcommittees is also crucial to the functioning of the federal government. As we have seen, in order to establish any federal program, two types of legislation are necessary: an authorization bill and an appropriation bill. This means that every program established by Congress needs the approval of the Appropriations Committee if it is to be funded. This obviously makes Appropriations an extremely important committee.

Other House Committees. There are many other standing (that is, permanent) committees in the House of Representatives. These include the International Relations Committee; the House Armed Services Committee; the Agriculture Committee; the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee, etc. A full listing of these standing committees may be found in the following table:

In addition to the House standing committees, there are also three joint committees--that is, committees made up of members of both the House and the Senate. The include:

•The Joint Economic Committee
•The Joint Committee on Taxation; and
•The Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.

Since all legislation must be passed by both the House and the Senate, it is natural that the committee structure in the Senate should be similar to that of the House of Representatives. Although there are slight differences, one can generally expect that paralleling each committee in the House is one similar to it in the Senate. Since there are 435 members in the House and only 100 members in the Senate and since the number of committees in both chambers is roughly the same, Senators, as we have noted, receive far more multiple committee assignments than do members of the House.

The Senate Finance Committee. Like the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee is basically concerned with issues relating to the raising of revenues, through such means as taxes and tariffs. As we have already noted, although this committee does not constitutionally have the direct power to initiate taxation legislation, it does so by amendment. In addition, since amendments to revenue legislation are allowed on the floor of the Senate far more often than they are on the floor of the House, the amending process here plays a rather significant role. Because of this process, House and Senate versions of fund-raising legislation can often differ markedly. Moreover, because of the prestige and power of the Senate, compromises between the two bodies often fall closer to the Senate version.

The Senate Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee in the Senate has a similar role as the Appropriations Committee in the House. It deals with the spending of money. Since most authorization bills also require appropriations bills, this committee, together with its many subcommittees, is obviously one of the more important committees in the Senate.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee may be considered to be one of the more prestigious committees in the Senate. In general, its power and prestige is far greater than that of the International Relations Committee in the House. This difference is due to the differences in the role of the Senate, as compared to the House, as originally conceived of by the Founders. As we have noted, as originally conceived, the House was to represent the people, and the Senate, the states. Since the states were giving up some of their power to a central authority, they wanted to maintain some checks on that authority. This was especially true in matters of diplomacy and foreign relations which were to be handled exclusively by the national government.

In order to maintain a check on the national government, according to the Constitution the states voting in the Senate have to ratify or approve all treaties entered into by the United States by a two thirds vote. This means that if one third of the Senate--or, as originally conceived, one third of the states--disapproves of a foreign policy stand they can effectively veto it by blocking the relevant treaty. Since, in our early history, much of our foreign relations was carried out by treaty, this was an important provision. Today, of course, far less of our foreign affairs is carried out by treaty.

It is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which holds the hearings on these treaties and which must make a recommendation to the full Senate on whether or not to support a treaty. This Committee, therefore, is far more important in the Senate than the parallel International Relations Committee is in the House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee. Another way in which the states attempted to maintain some control over the national government was that all important federal appointments which were made by the President had to be approved by a simple majority vote of the Senate. In the words of the Constitution, the President appoints "with the advice and consent of the Senate." As far as major executive appointments are concerned, hearings on these appointments are held by a variety of substantive committees in the Senate. However, hearings on all judicial appointments are held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. These appointments include all federal judges--including, most importantly, the Justices of the Supreme Court. Since federal judicial judges are appointed for life, the process involved in their appointment is extremely important. These judges tend to remain on the bench for longer than most presidents, senators or representatives remain in office.

Not only does the Senate Judiciary Committee hold the hearings with regard to these judicial appointments, it also makes recommendations to the full Senate regarding these nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee, therefore, enjoys far more power than the parallel Judiciary Committee enjoys in the House.

Other Senate Committees. Because there are fewer members in the Senate than in the House and because each senator controls a significant amount of power, the Senate works with far less formal procedures than does the House. For this reason, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee has nowhere near the power that the Rules Committee has in the House. It does not place bills on the agenda or determine the specific rules by which a bill will be discussed.

In the Senate, these matters are decided as the discussion on each bill proceeds by agreement of all senators as worked out by the majority leader in consultation with the minority leader. These arrangements are called unanimous consent agreements.

As in the House, there are a number of other committees in the Senate which are responsible for other functional areas dealt with within our national government. While there are eighteen standing committees in the House, there are seventeen somewhat parallel standing committees in the Senate. These are listed in the following table:

There are also some Select committees in the Senate. Technically these are supposed to be temporary committees. They include:

•The Select Committee on Intelligence; and
•The Select Committee on Ethics.
 

The Lawmaking Process

Committee  Structure

Centeralized Congressional Leadership