Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:20:40.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The President Proposes and Congress Disposes—But Not Always: Legislative Initiative on Capitol Hill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

John R. Johannes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recurring and fundamental questions about policy-making in the United States focus on Congress' ability to initiate legislation. Does Congress lead? How and when? Are conditions changing to enhance or inhibit congressional initiative?

Nearly all commentators on the legislative process see the president's leadership as natural. But many have argued that he has become the dominant or even exclusive initiator of major legislation. House Republican Leader John Rhodes recently wrote that “Congress has served as little more than a glorified echo chamber for the Executive Branch of government—usually content to approve or disaprove [sic], rarely willing to initiate.” Former Senator Mike Monroney asked, “Is Congress still capable of initiating and enacting its own legislative program?”

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1974 , pp. 356 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Washington Post, January 21, 1974, p. A-20.

2 Quoted in Price, David E., Who Makes the Laws? Creativity and Power in Senate Committees (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), p. 1Google Scholar.

3 Brinkley, David, “Foreword,” in Congress Needs Help, by Donham, Philip and Fahey, Robert J., (New York, 1966), p. viGoogle Scholar.

4 Quoted in Davidson, Roger H., “Congress and the American Political System,” in Legislatures in Developmental Perspective, eds. Kornberg, Allan and Musolf, Lloyd D. (Durham, N.C., 1970), p. 139Google Scholar.

5 Robinson, James A., “Staffing the Legislature,” in Kornberg and Musolf, pp. 373, 377Google Scholar.

6 Adrian, Charles R. et al. , American Government 73/74 Encyclopedia (Guilford, Conn., 1973), p. 175Google Scholar. For the now classic argument that Congress does not and should not initiate, see Huntington, Samuel P., “Congressional Responses to the Twentieth Century,” in The Congress and America's Future, 2d ed.; ed. Truman, David B. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1973), pp. 6–38Google Scholar.

7 Rosenthal, Alan, “The Effectiveness of Congress,” in The Performance of American Government: Checks and Minuses, ed. Pomper, Gerald M. et al. (New York, 1972), pp. 118–19Google Scholar.

8 Quoted in Price, , Who Makes the Laws? p. 1Google Scholar.

9 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Committees, “Toward a House of Worse Repute or How to Be a Rubber Stamp With Honor,” Committee Organization in the House, 93d Cong., 1st sess., 1973, p. 781.

10 See, for example, Huitt, Ralph K., “Congress: The Durable Partner,” in Congress: Two Decades of Analysis, eds. Huitt, and Peabody, Robert L. (New York, in Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), pp. 109–29Google Scholar; Vinyard, Dale, Congress (New York, 1968), pp. 19–20Google Scholar; Saloma, John S. III, Congress and the New Politics (Boston, 1969), pp. 93–97Google Scholar; Bibby, John F. and Davidson, Roger H., On Capitol Hill: Studies in the Legislative Process, 2d ed. (Hinsdale, Ill., 1972), pp. 3–6Google Scholar; and Polsby, Nelson W., “Policy Analysis and Congress,” Public Policy, XVIII (Fall, 1969), 61–74Google Scholar.

11 Chamberlain, Lawrence H., The President, Congress and Legislation (New York, 1946), pp. 453–54Google Scholar.

12 Nonetheless, several writers have tried, producing estimates of congressional initiatives ranging from 20 to 80 percent of all laws and 20 to 95 percent of all bills. See Chamberlain, , The President, p. 450Google Scholar; Brinkley, , “Foreword,” p. ivGoogle Scholar; Lindbloom, Charles E., The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1968), p. 86Google Scholar; Bendiner, Robert, Obstacle Course on Capitol Hill (New York, 1964), p. 31Google Scholar; and Berman, Daniel M., In Congress Assembled (New York, 1964), p. 70Google Scholar.

13 Bailey, Stephen K., Congress Makes a Law: The Story Behind the Employment Act of 1946 (New York, 1950), p. 236Google Scholar. Many writers fall into what Price calls the “zero sum fallacy” in trying to classify initiatives too neatly as presidential or congressional (Who Makes the Laws? p. 296).

14 For a partial list see Johannes, John R., “Congress and the Initiation of Legislation,” Public Policy, XX (Spring, 1972), 282Google Scholar, note 7. See also Price, Who Makes the Laws?; Peabody, Robert L. et al. , To Enact a Law: Congress and Campaign Financing (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Nadel, Mark V., The Politics of Consumer Protection (Indianapolis, 1971)Google Scholar; McAdams, Alan K., Power and Politics in Labor Legislation (New York, 1964)Google Scholar; and Chaples, Ernest A. Jr, “Congress Gets New Ideas from Outside Experts,” in To Be a Congressman: The Promise and the Power, eds. Groennings, Sven and Hawley, Jonathan P. (Washington, D.C., 1973), pp. 169–83Google Scholar. For an analysis of congressional influence and initiative based on some of these and many more case studies, see Moe, Ronald and Teel, Steven, “Congress as Policy-Maker: A Necessary Reappraisal,” Political Science Quarterly, LXXXV (09, 1970), 443–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Wolman, Harold, The Politics of Federal Housing (New York, 1971), pp. 73, 80Google Scholar; and Price, , Who Makes the Laws? pp. 206–07Google Scholar. For an elaboration on these forms of initiation, see Johannes, John R., Policy Innovation in Congress (Morristown, N.J., 1972), pp. 5–16, 27–28Google Scholar.

16 Sundquist, James L., Politics and Policy: The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Years (Washington, D.C., 1969)Google Scholar. Bertram Gross goes to the extreme: “I know of no cases whatsoever outside of some foreign legislation [sic] where important innovations ever took place without congressional initiative preceding executive action.” Committee Organization in the House, p. 334.

17 Sundquist, , Politics and Policy, pp. 195–200Google Scholar; Price, , Who Makes the Laws? p. 201Google Scholar; and Anderson, J. W., Eisenhower, Brownell and the Congress: The Tangled Origins of the Civil Rights Act of 1956–57 (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

18 Johannes, John R., “Study and Recommend: Statutory Reporting Requirements as a Technique of Legislative Initiation” (Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 09, 1974)Google Scholar.

19 Johannes, John R., “Where Does the Buck Stop?—Congress, President, and the Responsibility for Legislative Initiation,” Western Political Quarterly, XXV (09, 1972), 396–415Google Scholar.

20 For examples, see Jennings, M. Kent, “Legislative Politics and Water Pollution Control, 1956–61,” in Congress and Urban Problems, ed. Cleavel, Frederick N. et al. , (Washington, D.C., 1969), pp. 72–109Google Scholar; Ripley, Randall B., “Congress and Clean Air: The Issue of Enforcement,” in Cleaveland, Congress and Urban Problems, pp. 224–78Google Scholar; and Price, , Who Makes the Laws? pp. 99, 218–19, 231Google Scholar.

21 For an example of a crisis, as well as one showing how senators can generate outside interest, see Harris, Richard, The Real Voice (New York, 1964)Google Scholar.

22 Sundquist, , Politics and Policy, p. 509Google Scholar; Cleaveland, , “Legislating for Urban Areas: An Overview,” in , Cleaveland, Congress and Urban Problems, pp. 352–53Google Scholar; Price, Who Makes the Laws? passim; and Chaples, “Congress Gets New Ideas.”

23 See Ripley, Randall B., Power in the Senate (New York, 1969), pp. 170–84; Polsby, “Policy Analysis and Congress.”Google Scholar

24 See Davidson, Roger H., The Role of the Congressman (New York: Pegasus, 1969), chaps. 3–4Google Scholar.

25 Price, , Who Makes the Laws? p. 172Google Scholar.

26 Nadel, , Politics of Consumer Protection, pp. 36–37Google Scholar.

27 For examples of the differences of opinion, see Cleaveland, , “Overview,” p. 352Google Scholar; Price, , Who Makes the Laws? pp. 310–14Google Scholar; Nadel, , Politics of Consumer Protection, p. 152Google Scholar; Chaples, “Congress Gets New Ideas”; and Johannes, , Policy Innovation in Congress, p. 17Google Scholar.

28 Fenno, Richard F. Jr, Congressmen in Committees (Boston, 1973), pp. 278–79Google Scholar.

29 Bibby, and Davidson, , On Capitol Hill, pp. 186–91Google Scholar.

30 Price, , Who Makes the Laws? pp. 196, 330–31Google Scholar. More generally, see Patterson, Samuel C., “Congressional Committee Professional Staffing: Capabilities and Constraints,” in Kornberg, and Musolf, , pp. 390–428Google Scholar; and the collection of working papers and testimony in Committee Organization in the House, pp. 186–221; 659–91.

31 Fox, Harrison W. and Hammond, Susan Webb, “Congressional Staffs and Congressional Change” (Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, 09, 1973), esp. pp. 7, 10–13, 27–34Google Scholar.

32 See Jones, Charles O., The Minority Party in Congress (Boston, 1970), chap. 8Google Scholar.

33 For elaboration on this and what follows, see Ornstein, Norman J., “Causes and Consequences of Congressional Change: Subcommittee Reforms in the House of Representatives, 1970–1973” (Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, 09, 1973)Google Scholar; and the following contributions to The Annals, CDXI (January, 1974): Rohde, David W., “Committee Reform in the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee Bill of Rights,” pp. 39–47Google Scholar; Asher, Herbert B., “Committees and the Norm of Specialization,” pp. 63–74Google Scholar; and Ornstein, Norman J., “Towards Restructuring the Congressional Committee System,” pp. 147–57Google Scholar.

34 See notes 30, 31 above.

35 Committee Organization in the House, vols. 1–3.

36 Meller, Norman, “Legislative Staff Service: Toxin, Specific, or Placebo for the Legislature's Ills,” Western Political Quarterly, XX (06, 1967), 381–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 PL 91–510 (84 Stat. 1140, esp. 1183). The new computerized information system, when developed, may make more time available for staffs now engaged in routine paper work.

38 Shields, Currin V., ed., Considerations on Representative Government (Indianapolis, 1958), p. 76Google Scholar.

39 Kendall, Willmoore, “The Two Majorities,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, IV (11, 1960), 317–45; Saloma, Congress and the New Politics, chap. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Cooper, Joseph and Brady, David W., “Organization Theory and Congressional Structure” (Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, 09, 1973), pp. 34–36Google Scholar.

41 For a discussion of several models for organizing power, see Saloma, Congress and the New Politics, chap. 2.