Copyright1989 by The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusells A venue,N. W. ,Washington,D. C.20036 Librwy of CongressCataloging-in-PublicationData Smith, StevenS., 1953-Callto order: floor politicsin theHouse and Senate ISteven S. Smith. p. em. Includes index. ISBN 0-8157-8014- 1 (alk. paper). ISBN 0-8157-8013-3 (pbk.:alk.paper) : 1.. United States. Congress-Decision making. 2. United States-Politics and government- 1945-Decision making. 3. Legislation-United States. 4.United States.Congress-Rules and practice. I. Title JK I 096.S581989 328.73'077-dc2089-9802 CIP 987654321 Thepaper usedinthispublication meetstheminimumrequirements of the American NationalStandard for Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper forPrinted Library Materials, ANSI 239.48-1984. Typeset in Unotron Aldus withPalatinoDisplay Composition by Graphic Composition,Inc. Athens,Georgia PrintingbyR. R. Donne/fey and Sons,Co. Harrisonburg,Virginia Book design by Ken Sabol Chapter Two Revolution in the House The House of Representativeshas passed through two phases in the nature of flooractivity during the past four decades, and it nowis well into a third phase. The first phase, running from the1950s to theearly1970s, was characterized by a mushrooming congressional agenda, gradually expanding flooractivity, andtheabsence of recorded voting in the Committee of the Wbole.1 The second phase began quite abruptly in 1973 withthe full implementation of rules providing for recorded electronic voting in the Conunittee of the Whole. The current and third phase was in fullbloomby 1981, the first year of the Reagan administration, although elements of thisnew phase beganto accumulate inthe late1970s. The shift from the first to the second phase in the early 1970s represented a revolutionarychange in floor politics. The number of flooramendments skyrocketed when members looked to the floor asa new outlet for expression andas acourt to which committee decisions might be appealed. Relationsbetween the parties, between junior and senior members,andbetween committees and the floorwere alteredwiththe help of important structural and procedural reforms.House decisionmaking became far less predictable as nearly all members had more opportunities tooffer flooramendments with some hope of success. The tidy decentralized process characterizing the first phase was transformed into a somewhat strained combination of decentralized andcollegial elements. The distinctivelycommittee-centered politics of the House became more fluid. Most policy decisions continued to be made incommittee or subcommittee, but more decisionswere challenged on the floor. The strains produced a decadeof move and countermove, asthe parties, factions, and leaders of the House adapted to the postreform environment of floordecisionmaking. The transformation fromthe first to the second phase is the subject of tl1is chapter. 1. See appendix1 for abrief review of floor procedures inbothchambers. Note: This chapter is a gold mine, but the beginning is slow. I highly recommend starting on page 13 of this pdf, and then perhaps coming back to the first pages later. The section on roll call voting and then Congress' response to the nightmares of roll call voting (suspension of the rules) are phenomenal. - James D'Angelo August 11, 2015Number 1 an'ttndrncnts l ,SOO t,600-t,400-'1,200 1,000 -l(){l 0 ... /\ "\ \ '\ ,;r \( 84ss8687ssS9to91nn941s969798'' Figure 2- 1. House Floor Amendments, by Type ofMeasure,Selecled Congresses,/ 955-86 Source: See appendi x 2. a.Measuresthat received a specialrule forinitial floor consideration. b.Measuresassociated with a"key vote"asidentifiedby Congressional Quarterly. AnOverview of House Amending Activity The explosion of floor amendments isa core feature of changing House politics since the1950s. This development is so rich andvaried that it is worth examining it from several points of view. The most obvious feat ures of the pattern of expanding amending activityare thebreak points denoting the three phases (figure 2- 1).The first phase,the period up tothe 92d Congress (J 971-72), shows a gradual increase in amendingactivity, reaching a plateau inthelate1960s. The second phase foUowsthe explosion of amending activity inthe 93d Congress (1973-74),witha peak inthe 95th Congress ( 1977-78)President Jimmy Carter's first Congress andThomas P. "Tip" O'Neill 'sfirst Congress as Speaker of the House. The thirdphase is infullviewby the 97th Congress ( 1981-82), whenthere was asubstantialdropinamending acti vity, followed bya partial recovery inthe 98thand99th. 2 The1980s represent Make note of the 92nd and 93rd Congresses, they are when roll call voting began in the Committee of the wholea distinctive pattern that contrasts sharplywith the hyperactivity of tlJe1970s These patterns also are reflected in the amending activity on politically significant legislation. One way to identify the most important issues is to draw upon measures subject to a"keyvote." In each Congress, the Congressional Quarterly Almanac reportstwenty-five to thirtyissues its editors consider to be of greatest nationalpolitical or policy significance. 3 The measures associatedwithkeyvotes constitute a thin layer of major legislationthat tends to receive the personal attention of presidents andcongressional party leaders. They are seldom more than1 or 2 percent of all measures considered on the floor.Anotherwayto identify important measures is to consider measures that receive a special rule for initial floor consideration ("major measures"in figure 2-1). This broader bandof legislation comprises about 20 percent of all legislation reaching the House floor.Special n1lemeasures are the targets of more thanthree-quarters of all flooramendments in recent years. On average, however,keyvote measures stimulate even more amending activity than special rule legislation. In the keyvote strarum, the break between the first and second phases is just as sharp as for alllegislation,but the break between the second andthirdphases is not visible. If anytlring, the trend toward more amending activity continues in the 1980s forthe upper stratum of keyvote measures.In contrast, the broader bandof maJor measures faced significantly fewer flooramendments in the1980s thanin the 1970s, which is consistent with the viewthat the Congresses of the 1980s comprise adistinctive era. Just whyandhow the 1980s are so distinctive is the subject of the next chapter. A different perspective is offeredby the proportion of measures considered on the floor to whlch amendmentswere offered, as figure 2-2 shows.The proportion increased nearly monotonically during the late 1950s and1960s, peaked in the mid-l970s, andremainedbetween15and20 percent 2. Wlrile the number of amendments for all measures was not collected for the 97th and98th Congresses ( 1981-1984), the pattern of a dip in the 97th Congress and some recovery thereafter is visible in tl1enumber of recordedvotes,wlrichtrackswell withthe number of amendments. In the fourCongresses of the 1979-86 period, the number of recorded votes was 1,276, 812, 906, and890, respectively.Appendix2 provides estimates of the number of amendments forthe Congresses for which data were not collected. See Norman JOrnstein, Thomas E. Mann, and Michael JMalbin,Vital Statistics on Congress,1987-1988 Washington: Congressional Quarterly,1987), p. 165. 3.Key votes are not without theirproblems, of course.Over the years, the criteria employedforthe selection of keyvotes have varied somewhat.Moreover, there is no practical way to exanrine the reliabilityof the application of the criteria specified. For some background, see Steven A. Shull and James M.Vanderleeuw, "What Do Key Votes Measure?" Legislative StudiesQuarterly, vol.12 (November 1987), pp.573-82. ~ r c e n t ilf mc3suri!S 30 Subjeel10 one or rnorc arrv:ndments 84856587~ ~ 90919Z93M9S96W9699 Figure 2-2. Measures Subject to Floor Amendments in the House Selected Congresses, 1955-86 Source: See appendix2. thereafter. T11eproportion then declined further in the1980s, consistent with the contraction in the total number of amendments. This pattern is due,at least in major part, to innovations inthe special rules governing the amendment stage in the Committee of the Whole and a contraction in Congress'spolicy agenda,aschapter 3will explore. Not all amendments are successful or important. Indeed, it is conceivable that the proportion of successful amendments declined as the number of amendments increased. Just the opposite happened during the 1970s, as figure 2-3 shows. The success ratesboth for all amendments and for amendments to major legislation increased while the volume of amending activity increased.Anotherpossibility is that a large portion of amending activity since the early1970s hasbeen trivial,producing amendments that were more successful but of lesser political import. There issome evidence that this is the case. One indication is that there has beena slight increase in the percentage of amendments disposed of byvoicevote.4 Another in-4. Amendments votedon byvoice votes averaged 64 percent of all amendments in the five (footnote continued on the next page) Pcrc