Abstract
Scholars commonly observe that lawmaking in Congress has transitioned from the textbook system of “regular order” in which power was decentralized in committees and lawmaking followed a formal process to one of “unorthodox lawmaking” characterized by the centralization of power in party leaders and a lack of formal process. It is debated whether this change marks a decline in Congress’s lawmaking capacity, or is a procedural adaptation that has allowed Congress to remain productive despite high levels of partisanship. In this article, we maintain that lawmaking in Congress varies along two dimensions: formality of process and centralization of power. We analyze non-spending bills added to omnibus appropriations packages to demonstrate that lawmaking on these bills is informal and decentralized. Rank-and-file members retain a capacity to place matters on the legislative agenda and authorizing committees retain gatekeeping and policymaking authority. The process through which add-ons are approved is also bipartisan. Our findings demonstrate that this style of lawmaking is a procedural adaptation used by members to pass legislation important to their districts and in which committees continue to play an important deliberative role.
Acknowledgment
Thanks are due to Jackson Gode, Curtlyn Kramer, Danielle Bates, and Natalie Smith for research assistance and to Jim Curry and Alan Wiseman for sharing data. Thanks also to audiences at the University of Georgia, the 2018 Center for Effective Lawmaking Conference at Vanderbilt University, the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Maryland for helpful feedback and to the Hewlett Foundation for financial support.
References
Adler, E. S., and J. D. Wilkerson. 2012. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139150842Search in Google Scholar
Aldrich, J., and D. W. Rohde. 2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered. 7th ed., edited by L. Dodd, and B. Oppenheimer, 269–92. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Aldrich, J., B. Perry, and D. W. Rohde. 2013. “Richard Fenno’s Theory of Congressional Committees and the Partisan Polarization of the House.” In Congress Reconsidered. 10th ed., edited by L. Dodd, and B. Oppenheimer, 193–220. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Black, D. 1958. The Theory of Committees and Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brady, D., and C. Volden. 2006. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar
Binder, S. A. 2021. “The Struggle to Legislate in Polarized Times.” In Congress Reconsidered. 12th ed., edited by L. Dodd, and B. Oppenheimer, 251–87. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cary, P., A. Holmes, and P. Rebala. 2019. “The Trump Tax Law Has Big Problems. Here’s One Big Reason Why.” Center for Public Integrity. https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/trump-tax-law-has-big-problems/.Search in Google Scholar
Casas, A., M. J. Denny, and J. Wilkerson. 2020. “More Effective ThanWe Thought: Accounting for Legislative Hitchhikers Reveals a More Inclusive and Productive Lawmaking Process.” American Journal of Political Science 64 (2): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12472.Search in Google Scholar
Cox, G., and M. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Curry, J. 2015. Legislating in the Dark: Information and Power in the House of Representatives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226281858.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Curry, J. 2019. “Knowledge, Expertise, and Committee Power in the Contemporary Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 44 (2): 203–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12219.Search in Google Scholar
Curry, J. M., and F. E. Lee. 2020. The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226716497.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Eatough, M., and J. Preece. 2021. “Crediting Invisible Work (Horses): Congress and the Lawmaking Productivity Metric,” Working Paper.Search in Google Scholar
Fenno, R. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown and Company (Inc.).Search in Google Scholar
Hanson, P. 2014. Too Weak to Govern: Majority Party Power and Appropriations in the U.S. Senate. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107477872Search in Google Scholar
Hanson, P. 2019. “Still Muddling along? Assessing the Hybrid Congressional Appropriations Process.” In Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform, edited by T. LaPira, L. Drutman, and K. Kosar, 145–61. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226702605.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Hanson, P., and L. Drutman. 2017. Does Regular Order Produce a More Deliberative Congress? Evidence from the Annual Appropriations Process. San Francisco: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Search in Google Scholar
Harbridge-Yong, L., V. Craig, and A. E. Wiseman. Forthcoming. “The Bipartisan Path to Effective Lawmaking.” The Journal of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1086/723805.Search in Google Scholar
Hassell, H. J. G., and S. Kernell. 2016. “Veto Rhetoric and Legislative Riders.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (4): 845–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12217.Search in Google Scholar
Krehbiel, K. 1992. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.8850Search in Google Scholar
Kornberg, M. 2023. Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/korn20182Search in Google Scholar
Krutz, G. 2001a. Hitching a Ride: Omnibus Legislating in the U.S. Congress. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Krutz, G. 2001b. “Tactical Maneuvering on Omnibus Bills in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 210–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669368.Search in Google Scholar
LaPira, T., L. Drutman, and K. Kosar, eds. 2019. Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226702605.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2016. Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226409184.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
LeLoup, L. 2005. Parties, Rules, and the Evolution of Congressional Budgeting. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lewallen, J. 2020. Committees and the Decline of Lawmaking in Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.11533650Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. A. 2010. “Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 766–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055410000432.Search in Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. A. 2013. “Congressional Power over the Executive Branch: Limitations on Bureaucratic Regulations, 1989–2009.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 43 (3): 523–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12044.Search in Google Scholar
Magleby, D. B., and M. E. Reynolds. 2017. “Putting the Brakes on Greased Wheels: The Politics of Weak Obstruction in the United States Senate.” Congress and the Presidency 44 (3): 344–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2017.1360964.Search in Google Scholar
Mann, T., and N. Ornstein. 2006. The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195174465.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Mayhew, D. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
McCarty, N., K. Poole, and H. Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Oleszek, W. 2020. The ‘Regular Order’: A Perspective. Washington: Congressional Research Service.Search in Google Scholar
Polsby, N. 2004. How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195182965.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Poole, K., and H. Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology and Congress, 2nd ed. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Search in Google Scholar
Schick, A. 2007. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy and Process, 3rd ed. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. 1992. “Congress Is a “They,” Not an “It”: Legislative Intent as an Oxymoron.” International Review of Law and Economics 12: 239–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-8188(92)90043-q.Search in Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. 2008. “Spoiling the Sausages? How a Polarized Congress Deliberates and Legislates.” In Red and Blue Nation? Consequences and Correction of America’s Polarized Politics, edited by P. S. Nivola, and D. Brady. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sinclair, B. 2012. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington: CQ Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tauberer, J. 2017. “How a Complex Network of Bills Becomes Law: Introducing a New Data Analysis of Text Incorporation.” Medium. https://medium.com/@govtrack/how-a-complex-network-of-bills-becomes-a-law-9972b9624d36.Search in Google Scholar
Volden, C., and A. E. Wiseman. 2014. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139032360Search in Google Scholar
Volden, C., and A. E. Wiseman. 2018. “Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Senate.” The Journal of Politics 80 (2): 731–5. https://doi.org/10.1086/697121.Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- The Forum: Spring 2023 Issue Introduction
- Articles
- Speaker Nancy Pelosi: A Master of the House
- The House Freedom Caucus, Kevin McCarthy’s Race for Speaker, and the Fate of Rules Reform in the 118th Congress
- The Speaker Election in the 118th Congress: A Procedural Review
- Just How Unorthodox? Assessing Lawmaking on Omnibus Spending Bills
- The Partisan Dimensions of Earmarking in the U.S. House of Representatives
- After Dobbs: The Partisan and Gender Dynamics of Legislating on Abortion in Congress
- Disability Policy in the Contemporary Congress
- Out-of-State Donors and Nationalized Politics in U.S. Senate Elections
- Book Reviews
- Anna Gunderson: Review of Captive Markets. Accountability and State Prison Privatization
- LaGina Gause: The Advantage of Disadvantage: Costly Protest and Political Representation for Marginalized Groups
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- The Forum: Spring 2023 Issue Introduction
- Articles
- Speaker Nancy Pelosi: A Master of the House
- The House Freedom Caucus, Kevin McCarthy’s Race for Speaker, and the Fate of Rules Reform in the 118th Congress
- The Speaker Election in the 118th Congress: A Procedural Review
- Just How Unorthodox? Assessing Lawmaking on Omnibus Spending Bills
- The Partisan Dimensions of Earmarking in the U.S. House of Representatives
- After Dobbs: The Partisan and Gender Dynamics of Legislating on Abortion in Congress
- Disability Policy in the Contemporary Congress
- Out-of-State Donors and Nationalized Politics in U.S. Senate Elections
- Book Reviews
- Anna Gunderson: Review of Captive Markets. Accountability and State Prison Privatization
- LaGina Gause: The Advantage of Disadvantage: Costly Protest and Political Representation for Marginalized Groups