Click www.ondix.com to visit our student-to-student file sharing network.
This a 18 page paper including references. The paper is about the legislative process of
law making from the grassroots of the formulation of a bill to the intricate forms of
getting the bill formed into legislation in the United States governement.
3 main questions of the essay: How and what is a bill/legislation? What are the possible
steps that could be taken to create legislation in the United States government? And what
are the meanings of log-rolling, implicit and explicit bargaining?
To understand the legislative process, we first must understand that a bill is actually
started when an idea for gain and or profit for big business, interest groups, constituents,
and Congressman/Congresswoman political advancement are thought of. Sometimes, an
interest group and Congressman/Congresswoman, big business and
Congressman/Congresswoman, or constituents and Congressman/Congresswoman
conjointly conceive legislation. Once the idea of the proposed legislation is made to a
House Representative, it is up to them to bring the bill to the floor by dropping the
proposed bill in the hopper by the Speaker's podium or handing the legislation to the
House Clerk. The Representative who brings the legislation into the House becomes the
legislation's sponsor; the Representative may also look for other members of the House to
cosponsor the legislation. This is usually done to seek and show wide support for the
legislation. Representatives may also seek help from interest groups to influence other
members in the House to cosponsor the legislation or give their support for the
legislation.
During the early process of introducing legislation, many representatives have expert
drafters construct the wording in the proposed legislation to give their legislation a
chance to be heard and not killed in the first second it is heard. An example of this tactic
is the Contract of America. There was measures or items that was worded in such a way
that you would have to really look hard to figure out what the titles of the legislation
really meant. "The American Dream Restoration Act"(tax code reform), "The Common
Sense Legal Reforms Act"(tort and product liability changes), and "The Taking Back Our
Streets Act"(crime control), all of this legislation were worded in The Contract with
America (Davidson and Oleszek, p.230). Any piece of legislation can be drafted by
anyone that would like to help the legislation pass in the House and then Congress.
Another tactic that is commonly used with drafting of legislation is packaging of bills.
Packaging usually contains a vast amount of legislative issues that was brought to the
House floor and died, died in committee, or defeated in vote. They are usually tied in
with a large bill, so they can be hidden to have a better chance of passing through and
becoming a bill.
Once apiece of legislation has been drafted and is ready to be presented to the House for
debate, it is then up to the Representative if he or she wants to introduced or brought to
the floor early or late in the Congressional session. "A bill that might succeed early in a
session could fail as adjournment nears" (Davidson and Oleszek, p. 231). On the flipside
of things apiece of legislation that is introduced in the last days of Congress, can become
a bill, due to trying to finish Congressional business quickly. Sometimes apiece of
legislation can be added or taken off the Congressional agenda, due to reelection
concerns. All of these are just the introduction process of the proposed legislation before
it is sent to committee.
The referral of legislation is very important to the possibility of the passage or failure of
the legislation. An example of how important the referral of legislation can be is the
Domenici bill S. 790. By Domenici avoiding the word tax in legislation aimed at
proposing a charge on waterborne freight he avoiding getting the legislation referred to
the Finance Committee, where Russell B. Long, of Louisiana was chairman at the time.
Why was this important? Louisiana has one of the two world's busiest and biggest barge
ports. Domenici knew that he (Long) could bring up several years worth of legislation
before he would bring up S. 790. So, by drafting the legislation without using the words
tax he was able to get the legislation to be referred to the Commerce and Environment
Committees, which coincidently he served on (Davidson and Oleszek, p.233). Once the
legislation has been reported out of committee it can be brought to the House floor for
debate and general amendments. Rules of the House states, that a majority of the full
committee must be present to report any and all legislation out to the floor of the House.
If this measure is violated, the legislation can have a point of order reported against it
once it presented to the House floor. "A point of order can halt the proceedings of the
legislation being debated on the House floor and only can be lifted by the chamber's
presiding officer decides that the contention is valid", (Davidson and Oleszek, p.234). If
the presiding officer does not find the contention valid the legislation is either sent back
to committee or dies. Once the legislation is sent out of committee in the House, the
legislation is listed on one of the several calendars in chronological order, and also in
order of what the legislation does. If the legislation raises or spends money it is sent to
the Union Calendar, public measures are on the House Calendar, private legislation are
sent to the Private Calendar (such as claims against the government), and generally non-
controversial bills are placed on the Corrections Calendar.
There are quick ways that can sometimes be taken to bring legislation off the calendar to
the House floor. One shortcut is, the designation of special days for considering minor
bills (Davidson and Oleszek, p.235). Example, the Corrections Calendar is up for floor
consideration on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. The creation of the
Corrections Calendar came about from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, it
gave the Speaker a way to control take away outlandish rules, regulations, and laws that
were on the books in Congress. A second shortcut that can be used to get minor
legislation out on the House floor is called "suspension of the rules". The Speaker of the
House also controls this shortcut. The way that a Speaker has control when using
suspension of the rules is by controlling whom he or she may recognize to speak on the
legislation. In today's Congress it is roughly used about 50% of the time, compared to
8% percent of time about a quarter of a century ago (Davidson and Oleszek, p.235). This
may be used every Monday and Tuesday on noncontroversial legislation, the measure
allows for debate about the legislation to last about forty minutes; no amendments can be
made, and requires a two-thirds vote passage (Davidson and Oleszek, p.235). Members
use this measure that who try to steer away from unfriendly amendments and points of
order against their legislation in committees. Third, a member can use the discharge
petition. The discharge petition is a rule the permits the House to relieve a committee
from jurisdiction over a stalled measure (Davidson and Oleszek, p.242). This rule allows
a way for the rank and file members to force legislation to the floor even if the majority
leadership opposes the legislation in question. The discharge petition can be used, if
legislation that was assigned to a committee is not reported after thirty days. Then any
member can file a discharge motion to get the legislation on the House floor, as long as
they have a majority of the House signatures, which are at least 218 members. The
legislation then is put on the Discharge Calendar for seven days; there it could be called
up on the second and fourth Mondays of the month by anyone of the members who
signed the discharge motion. If the discharge motion is passed the legislation is brought
up right away. Since 1910, only two discharge measures became law (Davidson and
Oleszek, p.242). This measure is primarily used as a threat mechanism to get a
committee to act on legislation before them and to get the majority party leadership to put
it on schedule for floor action.
Once on the House floor there are five main things or phases before final passage is
achieved they are: adoption of the rule, committee of the whole, general debate, the
amending phase, and voting. The adoption of the rule is the process by which the
Speaker and the committee chairmen who is affected by the debate over the legislation
decides on when the House will debate on the legislation and what type of rule will be
used for the debate. The time limit for this is usually an hour to explain the contents of
the rule being used; the entire time limit is rarely used. Custom dictates that the majority
member gives at least half of the time to the minority member of the Rules Committee for
debate. Once the debate ends the House votes on the rule. It is very rare that the rule is
ever defeated, due to the fact that the Rules Committee is sensitive to the wishes of the
House (Davidson and Oleszek, p.244). Once the House adopts the rule, it (the House) is
governed by the provisions set forth by the rule for the debate on the legislation. Now the
Speaker may declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole.
Committee of the Whole was designed to expedite consideration of legislation. In this
the House is in a different form and has a whole new set of rules. An example is that a
quorum normally has to have 218 members, but in a Committee of the Whole it only has
to have 100 members. The Speaker appoints a majority party colleague to preside over
the committee, which then begins the general debate of a bill or legislation (Davidson and
Oleszek, p.244).
In a general debate, a rule from the Rules Committee sets the allotted time for general
discussion on the legislation or bill under consideration, usually one to two hours.
Legislation that is controversial usually needs more allotted time then non-controversial
legislation, sometimes from four to ten hours. The time given for discussion on the
legislation is split between the majority and minority floor managers. Usually, this is the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee that reported the legislation
(Davidson and Oleszek, p.242). For the majority floor manager their job is to push the
wanted legislation through to the final passage stage and for the minority floor manager,
their job is to defeat the legislation by killing it or amending the legislation on the floor.
Once the have stated their reasons for passage or killing the majority and minority floor
manager they set aside about seven minutes for colleagues on their respective sides to
want to speak about the legislation. This leads up to the amending phase of the
legislation on the House floor.
The amending phase is where the "heart of the decision making" on the House floor
(Davidson and Oleszek, p.245). This determines the final shape of the legislation and is
usually dominating the discussion in the public's eye. The legislation's sponsor or
sponsors' and the legislation's opponent are giving five minutes to defend and attack the
legislation on the House floor. If they want to speak longer the representatives will say "I
move to strike the last word" or I move to strike the requisite number of words."
(Davidson and Oleszek, p.245). Now if there is a open rule for the debate on the
legislation opponents of the legislation will try to load as many objectionable
amendments so it will "sink", the opposite is possible when a proponent for the
legislation, they will try to add amendments on the legislation to attract other members to
support the legislation this is called "sweetening or adding sweetener" (Davidson and
Oleszek, p.245). After this comes the voting process.
Voting before1970 was not recorded. In 1970 the Legislative Reorganization Act was
passed, it made the records of who voted for or against any legislation public record in
the Committee of the Whole (Davidson and Oleszek, p.246). Now any representative
supported by twenty-five colleagues can obtain a recorded vote, the member that
requested a recorded vote is counted as one of the twenty-five who rise to be counted by
the chair (Davidson and Oleszek, p.246). Once all of the pending amendments have been
voted on by the Committee of the Whole rises and the chairman hands the gavel back to
the Speaker and the normal number for the quorum (218 members) is reinstated. Now
comes the process of the final passage.
Final passage starts off with the Speaker stating, " that under the rule the previous
question has been ordered" (Davidson and Oleszek, p.246). This simply states that can
be no further debate is allowed on the legislation or the amendments made to it. The
Speaker then asks any representative wants a separate vote on any of the amendments. If
there is none, all the amendments made to the legislation in the committee are agreed
upon and will be approved. The next step of importance is the recommittal motion. The
recommittal motion gives the House a chance to return or recommit the legislation to the
committee that reported it (Davidson and Oleszek, p.246). Recommittal motions very
rarely succeed in the House, but were put in place to protect the rights of the minority
party in the House. Once the recommittal motion is defeated the Speaker then declares,
"The question is on passage of the bill." (Davidson and Oleszek, p.246). Final passage is
a recorded vote usually. Once passed by the House the bill or legislation must be passed
in the Senate before it is sent to President to become a law. The process on how
legislation passes and become a law is different from those in the House.
The Senate process of legislation passing and becoming a law is different from those in
the House. In the Senate there are less legislators than in the House, therefore the Senate
does not have well-defined rules and precedents like the House. In fact, the Senate acts
more informal when it comes to decision making on legislation before them. The Senate
has rules that emphasize individualistic thinking amongst colleagues and rights of the
minority are greater than the rights given to the minority in the House. In the Senate any
action or progress on legislation can be held up or stopped by just one member, whereas
in the House it would take more than one member to hold up legislation from going to
committee, coming out of committee, and or passing the legislation. In the Senate,
legislation usually can reach the floor for a vote through two ways, unanimous consent
(also called time-limitation agreements) or by a motion (Davidson and Oleszek, p.247).
In the House, legislation can reach the floor many different ways, placing it on the
Corrections Calendar, Suspension of the Rules, and the Discharge Petition. With
unanimous consent Senators limit the time for debate on the legislation at hand, any
possible amendments, and a range of motions that could be made on the legislation.
Sometimes they specify the time limit for final passage voting and levy restrictions on the
amending process. They are the equivalent of special rules from the Rules Committee in
the House. Unlike in the House, most of the unanimous consent agreements are made in
private by Senators' staff aides instead being made in public hearings like the House.
Extraction of legislation from a committee in the Senate is different from in the House.
In the House, you would have to worded the legislation in such a way to get the
legislation in the committee of your desire, but in the Senate the legislation if it is
blocked in committee can be added to another piece of legislation that is total different
from it as long as it is nongermane. In the Senate you can also: bypass the committee
stage by putting the legislation on the calendar, suspending the rules, or discharge the
legislation from committee. But these three tactics that I have just listed are not as
effective as the first tactic and are kind of difficult to employ, also rarely succeeds.
In the Senate, when legislation has made it to the floor for vote it still has a chance of
being held up by three strong arm type tactics: holds, filibusters, and cloture. A hold is
not in the rules of the Senate nor a precedent was ever made for one, but it is an informal
custom, which is honored by a party's leader at their discretion. Holds have a power that
basically comes from a threat that is not implied physically or mentally but is know that it
could possibly lead to a filibuster or a possible disagreement with unanimous consent
agreements. Holds now are used to bring "death" to legislation by holding them up
indefinitely or to gain political leverage (Example: blockage of a president nomination
for a position). If a hold turns into a filibuster it can become a means to effectively end
any chance that the proposed legislation had for passage in the Senate. Filibusters simply
put are the right to extend the time of debate on the legislation at hand. Any one senator
or even a group of senators can just voice their opinions on the legislation for debate in
hopes of delaying, getting something on the legislation changed, or just simply defeating
the legislation. For a filibuster to succeed, some say that it depends on how long it takes
and most importantly when it is implied. A filibuster late in the congressional session
can be the most deadliest time for it to happen, due to the fact that is just no time left to
have a lengthy debate and break the filibuster successfully. Many people who defend the
use of a filibuster say that, "it protects the rights of the minority", gives time for through
debate on any legislation before them that they think should be discussed in great detail,
and "dramatizes issues" (Davidson and Oleszek, p.251). Opponents say that it just gives
minority factions in the Senate a chance to imply unwanted concessions. The differences
in the House and the Senate in my viewpoint are two main aspects, formal-informal and
power that the minority has in each chamber.
In the House, the rules are set from the beginning and are followed about nine out of ten
times. They are formal and rigid in their approach to legislation before them in
committees and floor debates. The members of the House try to always follow the rules
which they are governed by in the House, do work in committee and not by themselves,
develop a friendly work relationship, and be willing to go along with their party's wishes
when it comes to a vote they might affect themselves in their own constituencies.
Members of the House are also expected to be specialist, especially in one specific area
of legislation. Whereas, in the Senate the members are more informal in their approach
to legislation, do not have a set of rigid rules that tells them how they have to go about
legislation in their chamber. They are expected to specialize in issue that relevant to their
committees or affecting their home (Davidson and Oleszek, p.135). They are expected to
do the work and not worry about being in the "public's eye" unlike their House
counterparts. In the Senate members are allowed to be individualistic in their approach to
legislation. When it comes down to the power for the minority faction in both chambers
the House is the weaker of the two. In the Senate, a single member can hold up any
legislation that comes before them, whereas in the House it takes a quorum in most cases
218 members to hold up legislation.
The process of deciding how to vote on pending legislation is a hard one for members of
Congress. There are so many ways that a member can vote on legislation. They can vote
for the legislation and really want to see it pass or they can vote for the legislation and not
want to see it pass at all. They could vote against the legislation and want to see it fail or
they can vote against the legislation and want to see it pass. They can give their vote to
another member as a favor to get a favorable vote when they may need one them self for
their legislation. They could vote for the legislation in committee and vote against the
legislation at the vote of final passage or they can vote against the legislation in
committee and vote for it at final passage. Or how about this, the member could look and
see how their party is voting on the proposed legislation and then cast their vote. They
could even vote against their party and vote with people from their district, state, and or
region. All of these scenarios are possible in the complicated decision to vote yea or nay
on any legislation. I will attempt to explain the reasoning for why members of Congress
vote the way they do.
In my opinion, one of the most prevalent factors in the way members of Congress vote is
the "public record of voting." The public record of voting is the recorded tally of votes
on any measure or legislation that comes before any member of Congress, which is
public knowledge since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 was enacted. By
making the votes recorded and public knowledge interest groups, lobbyists, and
constituents can see any Congressional members voting record in their seat of Congress.
Now members of Congress became wearier about voting for just any legislation that they
could not explain their actions for to their constituents during a reelection bid or interest
groups who may give them donations for their campaigns. From this theory there comes
three types of decision makers: early deciders, active players, and late deciders.
Early deciders are fervent supporters who want to get out early and be part of the fight
(Davidson and Oleszek, p.261), and for there eagerness they are usually passed up by the
lobbyists because of they for the most part can not be swayed to see the lobbyists point
on the legislation and their track record on voting on an issue. Active players, on the
other hand usually hold off their final decision and or compliance on any legislation, until
they hear both sides of the argument and then usually give their full support to the one
side they believe in. Late deciders often delay their decision or sometimes if they already
gave an earlier commitment they retract it and make their decision after being courted by
the lobbyists even though they have little to no effect on the outcome of the pending
legislation. Late deciders are such because of fears or reelection and political payoffs in
the future. The casting of votes is usually the Congressman/Congresswoman pride and
joy. It reflects their stand on issues and measures that some legislators believe best serve
the interests of their constituents. "Senators and representatives strive to be recorded on
as many floor and committee votes as they can." (Davidson and Oleszek, p263). Do
these votes really reflect what the Senators and representatives really think of some
legislation before them?
When first looking at how a Senator or representative's vote is made, you may think that
he/she was for or against the legislation they voted on. But when we examine the
situation closer sometimes that was not the case. A member may vote to pass an
authorizing program, but vote against funding for the program (Davidson and Oleszek,
p266). Many members of Congress vote like this to save their appearance to the
lobbyists and to their constituents when it comes time for their reelection campaign.
Party is another factor into their voting decision on legislation in front of them. By
consulting with political colleagues in their party they get insight on the views of their
party as a whole. Party affiliation is the strongest single correlate of members' voting
decisions, and in recent years it has reached surprisingly high levels (Davidson and
Oleszek, p267). About two-thirds of all votes on the floor can be called "party unity
votes" (Davidson and Oleszek, p267).
Party unity votes are in which a majority whether it be democrats or republicans, one
party's majority will vote automatically against the other party's majority. On the other
hand partisan strength is the voting on the basis of demographics and or political areas.
Some legislators go away from their party's ranks when they feel that their constituents
they served are best served by going against their own party's agenda to get what the
constituents of their district can use and need. Some legislators still vote with their party
even though it would not help their constituents at home. Why is this? Party cohesion.
Party cohesion flows from top to bottom in a party. Party cohesion begins when a person
who has just entered politics feel that they best relate to one than the other. An example
of this is the defections of some southern legislators from the Democratic Party to the
Republican Party do to the fact they felt like they could relate more to the ideology of the
Republican Party compared to the Democratic Party. Most of the political parties have
social gatherings for incoming members of Congress to get them acquainted with party
members also, help them get in to committees that they would like to be put on. This
leads to the cue taking of other members in their party for which way they should vote on
legislation, instead of voting on the legislation in front of them on how it would affect
their home district (this occur frequently in both the House and Senate). A major factor
into the exploitation of incoming and other members of any party is "process
partisanship."
Process partisanship is, "the degree to which each institution is structured or operates in a
partisan fashion" (Davidson and Oleszek, p270). In the House, this is a very strong tactic
used by senior members over incoming and junior members. They can control what
committees, scheduling of legislation, and use of the special rules governing the House
debates on the floor. Also, they are able to engineer they way votes go their legislation
so they can win passage on their legislation and avoid the legislation that they should
lose. In the Senate, it is harder to control power, due to the fact that power is set up to be
distribute more between the majority and minority parties, also individuals in the Senate.
But, Senate leaders can regulate the time of any debates by their right of being recognized
first to speak and offer any amendments on the legislation being debated upon on the
floor. Ideology and voting also plays a part in the decision process of a
Congressman/Congresswoman.
It is very obvious to anyone who observes Congress to tell that ideology of a member's
party plays a part in the decisions of most congressmen, instead of the decision to vote on
any legislation on how they feel about it affecting their constituents. The members who
actually think about how any legislation would affect their home constituency, views
themselves as a constituency servant (Davidson and Oleszek, p136). That is another
form of controlled decision making for legislators. Constituency servant is a legislator
who sees themselves as the voice for his/her constituents and makes sure that their district
gets their fair share. Constituency servants will put the needs of their district over the
national needs of their party, that feel is more important to their constituents than their
own party. With this constituency servants fear the fact if they do not get what their
district wants or needs in the eyes of their constituents they can lose their seat in
Congress when it comes up for reelection. This leads to a factor that figures into the
equation and the factor is an attentive public.
Attentive publics are those citizens who are aware of issues facing Congress and harbor
decided opinions about what Congress should do (Davidson and Oleszek, p272). People
who fall under the category of being part of an attentive public usually are part of an
interest group (not always the case) that can constantly remind, bring a call for action,
and let their voice be heard about any issue or issues that affect them and their district.
For the most part members of Congress really do not have any problem identifying who
is paying attention to what is going on in that specific chamber of Congress or Congress
as a whole that will affect their district (through their reelection campaign and their
district's budget). Inattentive publics are the ones that Congressmen bank on. An
inattentive public do not pay close or no attention to congressional matters that will affect
them. This is a majority of the public at large. Some say that a legislator cannot
understate an inattentive public ability to cause problems (primarily in reelection
campaigns). These are all part of broad factors that come together to create a very
complex equation for decision-making in Congress for legislators. I forgot to mention
the two phases of decision-making: predisposition and conversation given by Cleo
Cherryholmes and Michael Shapiro (Davidson and Oleszek, p275). In the predisposition
stage of decision-making a legislator weighs into their mind that is voting for or against
legislation before them, if they cannot come to a conclusion in the predisposition stage of
decision-making they go into the conversation of decision-making. In the conversation
stage the legislator looks for any cues they can get from colleagues in the proposed
legislation. According to Donald Matthews and James Stimson there are nine sources of
voting cues: state party delegations, party leaders, party majority, president, House
majority, committee chairmen, ranking minority members, the conservative coalition, and
the liberal Democratic Study Group (Davidson and Oleszek, p275). Both the
Democratic and the Republican parties have the biggest source of voting cues to be same
state party delegations according to the study by Matthews and Stimson. Party and
committee leaders were the next largest source of voting cues in Congress. With the
model created by Matthews and Stimson, they were able to predict 88 percent of the vote
in Congress from 1958-1969. The only problem with the models is that they can never
give anyone the full depth of the factors in the equation that shape the Congressmen
decision-making. There are two main types of bargaining that legislators use to get their
desired goal, they are: implicit and explicit bargaining.
Implicit bargaining consists of actions taken by a legislator to get a desired reaction on a
measure from other legislators, even if negotiations might have not even taken place
between them. Another version of implicit bargaining is when a legislator seeks to
accept or get an opinion of a colleague with vast expertise in the subject matter at hand.
In return the same will be given to the colleague if they ever need help with a subject that
have little expertise in. In this form of implicit bargaining the trade off is information
and saving time to put on other legislation. These are two the most important factors in
having a successful legislative career in Congress (besides accumulating a huge war
chest).
Explicit bargaining is a fifty-fifty process. Compromise is the key with explicit
bargaining, if a member favors a program and another member opposes the program they
might come to the agreement of having a trial period for the program. After the trial
period they will decide on the legislation's fate. The most important thing to remember
for any legislator is, compromise is just something that you have to do, it is inevitable in
getting legislation done and if you do not compromise you will have a hard time getting
any legislation through your chamber or Congress as a whole. Logrolling is a larger form
of bargaining that makes compromise the important key to getting legislation through.
Logrolling involves trading amongst parties, where support is the median. This is most
visible in trading where it is a win-win situation for everyone (known as "pork barrel").
A legislator who gets involved in this process of logrolling is expected to support the
legislation in its final stage, no matter if it differs from what they gave their support to in
the beginning. It is best put by a former representative from Minnesota Republican Bill
Frenzel, "It's not a system of punishment. It's a system of rewards." (Davidson and
Oleszek, p279). Some logrolls do not involve direct payoffs for support on that
legislation; it could be paid off in support of a legislation with no relation to the issue at
hand. An example is giving a federal project to a state or district to get a better
committee assignment (Davidson and Oleszek, p280). Another form of logroll is called
time logroll. Simply put, support given to a measure now is traded off to get support on a
measure in a later time, sometimes specified within a time limit.
References
Weisberg, Herbert F., Heberlig, and Eric S., Campoli, Lisa M. 1999. "Classics in
Congressional Politics"
Keywords:
this page paper including references paper about legislative process making from
grassroots formulation bill intricate forms getting bill formed into legislation united states
governement main questions essay what bill legislation what possible steps that could
taken create legislation united states government what meanings rolling implicit explicit
bargaining understand legislative process first must understand that actually started when
idea gain profit business interest groups constituents congressman congresswoman
political advancement thought sometimes interest group congressman congresswoman
business congressman congresswoman constituents conjointly conceive once idea
proposed made house representative them bring floor dropping proposed hopper speaker
podium handing house clerk representative brings into house becomes sponsor
representative also look other members cosponsor this usually done seek show wide
support representatives also seek help from interest groups influence other members
cosponsor give their support during early process introducing many representatives have
expert drafters construct wording proposed give their chance heard killed first second
heard example this tactic contract america there measures items that worded such would
have really look hard figure titles really meant american dream restoration code reform
common sense legal reforms tort product liability changes taking back streets crime
control were worded contract with america davidson oleszek piece drafted anyone would
like help pass then congress another tactic commonly used with drafting packaging bills
packaging usually contains vast amount legislative issues brought floor died died
committee defeated vote they usually tied with large they hidden have better chance
passing through becoming once apiece been drafted ready presented debate then wants
introduced brought floor early late congressional session might succeed early session
could fail adjournment nears davidson oleszek flipside things apiece introduced last days
congress become trying finish congressional business quickly sometimes apiece added
taken congressional agenda reelection concerns these just introduction before sent
committee referral very important possibility passage failure example important referral
domenici domenici avoiding word aimed proposing charge waterborne freight avoiding
getting referred finance committee where russell long louisiana chairman time important
louisiana world busiest biggest barge ports domenici knew long could bring several years
worth before would bring drafting without using words able referred commerce
environment committees which coincidently served davidson oleszek once been reported
brought debate general amendments rules states majority full must present report measure
violated point order reported against presented point order halt proceedings being debated
only lifted chamber presiding officer decides contention valid presiding officer does find
contention valid either sent back dies sent listed several calendars chronological order
also does raises spends money union calendar public measures calendar private private
calendar such claims against government generally controversial bills placed corrections
there quick ways sometimes taken shortcut designation special days considering minor
bills example corrections consideration second fourth tuesdays month creation
corrections came about from former speaker newt gingrich gave speaker control take
away outlandish rules regulations laws were books congress second shortcut used minor
called suspension rules controls shortcut control when using suspension controlling
whom recognize speak today roughly used about time compared percent time quarter
century every monday tuesday noncontroversial measure allows debate last forty minutes
amendments made requires thirds vote passage members measure steer away unfriendly
amendments points against their committees third member discharge petition discharge
petition rule permits relieve jurisdiction over stalled rule allows rank file force even
majority leadership opposes question discharge petition assigned reported after thirty
days then member file motion long they majority signatures which least seven there
called fourth mondays month anyone signed motion motion passed right away since only
measures became primarily threat mechanism before them party leadership schedule
action five main things phases final passage achieved adoption rule whole general
amending phase voting adoption which chairmen affected over decides when will type
will limit hour explain contents being entire limit rarely custom dictates member gives
least half minority ends votes very rare ever defeated fact sensitive wishes adopts
governed provisions forth declare resolved into whole whole designed expedite
consideration different form quorum normally only appoints party colleague preside over
begins general sets allotted discussion under consideration hours controversial needs
more allotted controversial four hours given discussion split between minority managers
chairman ranking minority manager push wanted through final stage manager defeat
killing amending stated reasons killing manager aside seven minutes colleagues
respective sides want speak leads amending phase phase where heart decision making
determines final shape dominating discussion public sponsor sponsors opponent giving
five minutes defend attack want speak longer representatives will move strike last word
move strike requisite number words open opponents load many objectionable sink
opposite possible proponent attract other support called sweetening adding sweetener
after comes voting voting recorded reorganization passed made records voted public
record supported twenty five colleagues obtain recorded vote requested recorded counted
twenty rise counted chair pending been voted rises chairman hands gavel back normal
number quorum reinstated comes starts stating under previous question ordered simply
further allowed asks wants separate none agreed upon approved next step importance
recommittal recommittal gives chance return recommit recommittal motions very rarely
succeed were place protect rights party defeated declares question passed must senate
president become passes become different those senate passing becoming different those
senate less legislators than therefore does well defined precedents like fact acts more
informal comes decision making them emphasize individualistic thinking amongst
colleagues rights greater than rights given action progress held stopped just whereas take
more than hold going coming passing reach through ways unanimous consent limitation
agreements reach many ways placing suspension unanimous consent senators limit hand
possible range motions specify levy restrictions equivalent special unlike most
unanimous consent agreements private senators staff aides instead being hearings like
extraction worded such your desire blocked added another piece total nongermane bypass
stage putting suspending these three tactics just listed effective first tactic kind difficult
employ rarely succeeds still held three strong type tactics holds filibusters cloture hold
precedent ever informal custom honored leader discretion holds power basically threat
implied physically mentally know possibly lead filibuster disagreement agreements holds
death holding indefinitely gain political leverage blockage president nomination position
hold turns filibuster means effectively filibusters simply right extend hand senator even
group senators voice opinions hopes delaying getting something changed simply
defeating filibuster succeed some depends takes most importantly implied late session
most deadliest happen fact left lengthy break successfully people defend protects gives
think should discussed great detail dramatizes issues opponents factions imply unwanted
concessions differences viewpoint main aspects formal informal power each chamber
beginning followed nine times formal rigid approach committees debates always follow
governed work themselves develop friendly work relationship willing along wishes might
affect themselves constituencies expected specialist especially specific area whereas
approach rigid tells chamber expected specialize issue relevant affecting home expected
work worry unlike counterparts allowed individualistic approach down power faction
both chambers weaker single whereas takes quorum cases deciding pending hard really
want pass pass fail give another favor favorable need self look cast even people district
state region these scenarios complicated decision attempt explain reasoning opinion
prevalent factors record record tally votes knowledge since reorganization enacted votes
knowledge groups lobbyists constituents seat became wearier explain actions during
reelection donations campaigns theory three types makers deciders active players late
deciders deciders fervent supporters part fight eagerness lobbyists because part swayed
lobbyists point track issue active players hand compliance until hear both sides argument
full side believe often delay already gave earlier commitment retract make after courted
though little effect outcome pending because fears reelection political payoffs future
casting pride reflects stand issues some legislators believe best serve interests strive
reflect think some looking senator think voted examine situation closer case authorizing
program funding program save appearance campaign factor front consulting insight
views affiliation strongest single correlate decisions recent years reached surprisingly
high levels thirds unity unity whether democrats republicans automatically partisan
strength basis demographics areas legislators ranks feel served best served going agenda
district need still though help home cohesion cohesion flows bottom cohesion begins
person entered politics feel best relate defections southern democratic republican felt
relate ideology republican compared democratic parties social gatherings incoming
acquainted leads taking should instead front affect home district occur frequently both
major factor exploitation incoming partisanship partisanship degree each institution
structured operates partisan fashion strong senior incoming junior scheduling special
governing debates able engineer avoid should lose harder distribute between parties
individuals leaders regulate debates right recognized offer debated upon ideology plays
part obvious anyone observes tell ideology plays decisions congressmen instead feel
affecting actually affect constituency views themselves constituency servant form
controlled constituency servant legislator sees voice makes sure gets fair share servants
needs national needs servants fear wants eyes lose seat leads factor figures equation
attentive attentive publics those citizens aware facing harbor decided opinions people fall
under category attentive group always case constantly remind call action voice heard
issue problem identifying paying attention going specific campaign budget inattentive
publics ones congressmen bank inattentive close attention matters large legislator cannot
understate inattentive ability cause problems primarily campaigns broad factors come
together create complex equation forgot mention phases predisposition conversation
given cleo cherryholmes michael shapiro predisposition stage legislator weighs mind
cannot come conclusion predisposition conversation conversation looks cues according
donald matthews james stimson nine sources cues state delegations leaders president
chairmen ranking conservative coalition liberal democratic study republican parties
biggest source cues same state delegations according study matthews stimson leaders
next largest source model created matthews stimson able predict percent problem models
never full depth factors equation shape congressmen types bargaining desired goal
implicit explicit bargaining implicit consists actions desired reaction negotiations might
place between version seeks accept opinion colleague vast expertise subject matter return
same colleague ever need subject little expertise form trade information saving having
successful career besides accumulating huge chest explicit fifty fifty compromise favors
program opposes come agreement having trial period trial period decide fate thing
remember compromise something inevitable done compromise hard your logrolling
larger makes logrolling involves trading amongst where median visible trading situation
everyone known pork barrel gets involved logrolling matter differs gave beginning
former minnesota frenzel system punishment system rewards logrolls involve direct
payoffs paid relation giving federal project better assignment logroll logroll traded later
specified within references weisberg herbert heberlig eric campoli lisa classics politics
Keywords General:
Essay, essays, termpaper, term paper, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study,
college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research, book research, study help,
download essay, download term papers