CONGRESS AT WORK
_The purpose of this chapter is to explain how the nation’s laws are
made._
[Sidenote: The reason for two chambers:]
=Congress.=—The lawmaking branch of the national government is made up
of two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The
Congress of the Confederation consisted of one chamber only; but the
members of the constitutional convention were strongly impressed with
the desirability of establishing a bicameral legislative body. There is
a story that Thomas Jefferson, who believed a single chamber to be
sufficient, was engaged in a friendly argument with Washington on this
matter shortly after the constitution had been completed. The two were
taking tea together and Jefferson, following a common practice of the
time, poured some of his tea from his cup into the saucer. “Why do you
do that?” asked the Father of his Country. “To cool it”, replied
Jefferson. “Quite so”, added Washington, “and the Senate is to be the
saucer into which the laws which come hot from the House of
Representatives will be poured to cool.” That story may or may not be
true; but it gives a clue to the principal reason why there are two
branches of Congress instead of one. There is some significance,
moreover, in the fact that every state of the Union, and every foreign
country, has a legislature or parliament of two chambers.
[Sidenote: 1. To provide a safeguard.]
The bicameral system is commonly justified on two grounds. In the first
place, it is believed to afford a safeguard against hasty and unwise
legislation. A single chamber might be moved by a passing wave of
prejudice or enthusiasm to take action without sufficient reflection.
When all measures have to be considered by two legislative bodies, this
danger is not nearly so great. One chamber serves as a check on the
other. [Sidenote: 2. To permit two types of representation.] A second
reason is found in the desirability of having the lawmakers chosen in
different ways, some by small districts and some by large districts,
some for long terms and some for short terms. A good lawmaking body
should be thoroughly representative; it should represent the whole
country and all parts of the country; it should be kept in close touch
with public opinion by frequent elections, but the entire body of
lawmakers ought not to be changed at short intervals, for there would
then be no steadiness of policy. The framers of the constitution tried
to meet all these requirements by providing for a Senate, whose members
should be chosen by the states for six-year terms, and a House of
Representatives, made up of members elected by the people every two
years.[109] The former represents the states on a basis of equality; the
other affords them representation according to their respective
populations.
[Sidenote: Method of choosing senators.]
=The Senate: Its Organization.=—In the constitution, as originally
adopted, it was provided that each state should have two senators,
elected “by the legislature thereof”. For more than a hundred years that
method of election was followed. The two houses of the state legislature
chose the senators. But this plan became unpopular and in 1913 the
constitution was amended to provide that the senators should be chosen
in each state by popular vote. The term remains fixed at six years, but
one-third of the senators retire every second year.[110] Every state,
large or small, has two senators. Nevada, with only 80,000 population
has equal representation in the Senate with New York, which has above
ten million people. Proportionally, New York ought to have about two
hundred and fifty senators. This may seem to be unfair to the larger
states, but it was a necessary concession to the smaller states at the
time the union was formed. [Sidenote: The principle of equality.]
Population, moreover, is not the only thing that should be taken into
consideration. A state may be large in area, with great natural
resources and a splendid future before it, and yet be very thinly
settled. The Senate was created to represent the states as such, and all
the states are equal in rights, if they are not equal in area or
population. At any rate the provision for equal representation is in the
constitution and if you read the provision, you will see that it cannot
be easily changed (Article V, last clause).
[Sidenote: The Senate’s procedure.]
The Senate holds regular sessions each year at Washington. It may be
called in special session, even when the House of Representatives is not
sitting. This is because the Senate has some special powers apart from
those which it shares equally with the lower house. It makes its own
rules of procedure, decides any disputes as to the qualifications of its
own members, and has power, by a two-thirds vote, to expel any senator
from its membership. Most of the Senate’s routine work is done by
committees, the members of which are assigned every second year by an
unofficial “Committee on Committees” subject to the approval of the
whole chamber. There are about thirty of these committees, but many of
them are of small importance. The more important are those which deal
with revenue measures, appropriations, foreign relations, and interstate
commerce. Each committee has its own chairman.
=The Senate: Its Exclusive Powers.=—The Senate has three special powers
in which the House of Representatives possesses no share. These powers
relate to impeachments, the confirming of appointments, and the
ratification of treaties.
[Sidenote: 1. Trial of impeachments.]
The Senate, as the constitution declares, has “the sole power to try all
impeachments”. The procedure known as impeachment is of English origin
and goes back to mediaeval times when the only way of holding a king to
account was to impeach and punish his advisors. The framers of the
American constitution regarded impeachment as a useful means of checking
any arbitrary use of executive power and they, therefore, made provision
that “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the
United States” should be subject to impeachment before the Senate in
case of wrong-doing. The term “civil officers” includes members of the
cabinet, judges, ambassadors, even postmasters; but it does not include
the members of either branch of Congress nor, of course, does it include
either state or local officeholders. Civil officers of the United States
can be impeached only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors”; and if convicted can be punished only to the extent of
being removed from office as well as disqualified from ever holding any
federal position again. They cannot be put to death, or imprisoned, or
fined.
When it is desired to impeach any civil officer, the charges against him
are laid before the Senate by the House of Representatives. The Senate
sets a date for hearing the case; the evidence is presented; and the
Senate then frames its verdict behind closed doors.[111] A two-thirds
majority is necessary for a conviction.[112]
[Sidenote: 2. Confirmation of appointments.]
All the more important appointments made by the President require the
confirmation of the Senate. The President sends to the presiding officer
of the Senate the names of his proposed appointees and the Senate
thereupon refers them to the appropriate committees for consideration.
When the committees make their report the Senate then votes to confirm
or reject. A bare majority, not a two-thirds vote, suffices. Rejections
take place at times, but the great majority of the President’s
nominations are confirmed without delay. The Senate understands that the
chief responsibility for selecting federal officers rests with the
executive branch of the government and that confirmation should not be
refused without good reason. There is, however, a practice known as
“senatorial courtesy”, which has frequently led to the rejection of
names proposed by the President. According to this custom the Senate
will not confirm the appointment of any local officer, such as
postmaster or internal revenue officer, unless the person named for the
appointment is satisfactory to the senator or senators from the state
concerned, provided, of course, that these senators are of the same
political party as the President himself. Or, to put it more concretely,
if a Republican President nominates as internal revenue officer at
Philadelphia someone who is not approved by the Republican Senators from
Pennsylvania, the Republican majority in the Senate will not permit the
appointment to be confirmed. This unwritten rule of senatorial courtesy
has been enforced at some times and not at others. Some presidents have
been able to persuade the Senate to disregard it; but in general it is a
custom which ties the hands of all presidents to a considerable extent.
When the Senate is not in session, the President is free to make
appointments at his own discretion. These are known as “recess
appointments” and are temporary only. If the Senate, at its next
session, fails to confirm them, these recess appointments lapse and the
appointees get no pay for the time they may have served.
[Sidenote: 3. Ratification of treaties.]
All treaties between the United States and other countries must be
approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate before they can go into
effect. This gives the Senate an important influence in the control and
direction of foreign affairs because the relations between the United
States and other countries are fixed, to a considerable extent, by
treaties. The whole subject of treaties and foreign relations is so
complicated, however, that it may best be reserved for study in a later
chapter.
[Sidenote: Powers which are jointly exercised with the House.]
=The Senate: Its Concurrent Powers.=—In all other matters, apart from
impeachments, appointments, and treaties, the Senate has concurrent
power with the House of Representatives. There is a provision in the
constitution to the effect that all bills for raising revenue must
“originate” in the House of Representatives, but that the Senate may
amend such bills as it pleases. This is a partial reproduction of an
ancient rule in the unwritten constitution of Great Britain which gives
the House of Commons the initiative in all financial matters. By usage,
also, all bills for spending money originate in the lower house. But the
Senate, as a practical matter, uses its amending power so freely that it
can virtually originate measures of either sort whenever it desires to
do so. When a bill comes up from the lower chamber it can strike out
virtually the whole measure, put a new bill in its place, and send this
back to the House of Representatives. In matters which do not relate to
revenue or expenditure the powers of the two chambers are precisely the
same both in theory and in practice.
[Sidenote: How the size of the House is determined.]
=The House of Representatives: Its Organization.=—The House of
Representatives is nearly five times as large as the Senate, having 435
members at the present time. It is much too large for the effective
debating of measures.[113] Every ten years, after the population of each
state has been determined by the census bureau, Congress by law fixes
the total membership of the House for the ensuing decade. Dividing this
figure into the total population of the country gives a “ratio of
representation”, that is the uniform quota of population which is
entitled to one representative. For example, if the population of the
country is one hundred millions and the membership of the House is fixed
at 400, the ratio would be one representative for every 250,000 people.
Having found this ratio, it is a simple matter to determine how many
representatives each state shall have. New York, with ten million
people, would be allotted forty congressmen; Maine, with seven hundred
and fifty thousand people, would get only three. Nevada, Wyoming and
Delaware would not get any, if the ratio were strictly applied, but the
constitution requires that every state, no matter what its population,
shall be given at least one representative in the House. When the quota
to which each state is entitled has been figured the several states
proceed, through their legislatures, to lay out congressional districts
and from each such district one congressman is chosen at the next
election.
[Sidenote: Congressional districts.]
This work of “redistricting” the state gave rise at an early date to a
practice commonly known as “gerrymandering”.[114] The national laws
require that all congressional districts within a state shall be
approximately equal in population and that they shall be composed of
contiguous territory. Apart from these restrictions, the state
legislatures are free to map out the districts as they see fit and they
do this, very frequently, with an eye to gaining advantage for the
political party which happens to control the legislature. By adding one
county or town and taking off another, always with party motives in
mind, it is possible to “gerrymander” a district into such form that the
candidate of the favored party will have an advantage over his opponent.
True enough, these gerrymandered congressional districts, when drawn on
the map, often look like a lizard or a starfish, but there is nothing in
the constitution or the laws of the United States which requires
congressional districts to be uniform in shape.
[Sidenote: The method of choosing congressmen.]
=How Representatives are Chosen.=—Every second year elections are held
in all the congressional districts of the country and one congressman is
chosen from each. Each state determines how the nominations are made and
is responsible for conducting the election. The qualifications for
voting are the same as those established at state elections. There is no
legal requirement that a representative must be a resident of the
district which elects him; it is enough that he be a resident of the
state in which the district is located. But as a matter of practice
congressmen are nearly always residents of their districts. American
usage in this respect differs from that of some other countries,
particularly Great Britain, where members of the House of Commons are
frequently chosen from districts in which they do not reside. [Sidenote:
The residence requirement.] The advantage of this plan is that a capable
statesman can secure a seat in the lawmaking body even though his own
home district may be one which the opposite party controls. In the
United States, on the other hand, if a capable man belonging to the
Democratic party happens to live in a strongly Republican district,
there is practically no chance of his ever being a member of the
national House of Representatives no matter how strong his personal
qualifications may be. One congressional district, moreover, especially
in the residential portion of a large city, may have many capable men
living in it. But only one of them, under American usage, can sit in the
House. The argument that, in order to know the needs of his district, a
congressman must actually live in it, is on everyone’s tongue, but it
deserves no considerable weight. The first duty of a congressman is to
promote the interests of the whole people and not merely those of his
own district.
=The Speaker and the Committees.=—The House of Representatives elects
its own presiding officer, who is known as the Speaker. He has general
charge of the proceedings and until a few years ago appointed all the
committees. All questions of procedure are decided by him and he
determines which member of the House shall be “recognized”, that is,
permitted to speak, when several members desire to have the floor. The
Speaker is always a prominent member of the majority party and usually
one of its leaders. He has a considerable influence on the work of the
House.
In a body of more than four hundred members, it stands to reason that a
great deal of the business must be done by committees. There are now
nearly sixty of these committees, the most important being those on
rules, appropriations, ways and means, interstate and foreign commerce,
post-offices, military affairs, naval affairs, and agriculture.
[Sidenote: The committees: how selected.] Since 1910 these committees
have been appointed by a complicated plan which places the selection in
the hands of the whole House.[115] The majority party in the House
obtains a majority on each important committee.
[Sidenote: Stages in the making of a law:]
=The Process of Lawmaking.=—The work of the committees may best be
explained by describing the various stages through which a bill passes
before it becomes a law. [Sidenote: 1. Introduction of bill.] In the
first place, any member of the House may introduce a bill (which is a
draft of a proposed law) either for himself or for someone else. He does
this by writing his name on the back of the bill and dropping it into a
large basket at the Speaker’s table. During the course of each session
many thousand bills are placed in this “hopper” as it is called. One of
the Speaker’s assistants takes each bill from the basket and refers it
to the proper committee. If the bill relates to taxation it goes to the
Ways and Means Committee; if it relates to railroads it goes to the
Committee on Foreign and Interstate Commerce. Every bill goes to some
committee before the House looks at it.
[Sidenote: 2. Consideration by a committee.]
When the various committees receive their bills they place them on a
list for consideration and each is taken up in order unless the
committee decides to give some bills the right of way. Hearings on the
important measures are then held. The members of the committee meet in
their committee room and listen to the arguments of those who desire to
support or oppose the bill. Any citizen has the right to appear and be
heard. Sometimes, in the case of some important bills, such as a tariff
measure, the hearings may continue for several days or even for weeks.
The committee hearings, however, are usually held in the mornings only,
for the House is in session during the afternoons. When the hearings are
concluded the committee decides what action it will take. It may
recommend to the House that the bill ought to be passed, either with or
without changes. Sometimes a committee completely redrafts a bill and
reports it to the House in the entirely new form. But in the great
majority of cases the committees feel unfavorably towards the bills and
make no report or recommendation on these bills at all. [Sidenote: How
bills are killed in committee.] Such measures are merely “killed in
committee” and never get before the House. The House can, of course,
require any committee to send up a bill; but this it hardly ever does.
Most of the bills introduced by congressmen are put to death in this
way; in fact more than eighty per cent of them never survive the
committee stage.[116] One committee acquired such a reputation for
slaughtering bills that its committee room was nicknamed the
“legislative morgue”.
[Sidenote: 3. The committee’s report.]
But let us suppose that a bill is favorably regarded by a committee and
duly reported to the House. What happens next? It is placed on one of
the calendars or lists; printed copies are made; and when its turn
comes, it is laid before the House. A debate on the bill may take place,
amendments may be proposed, and votes taken.
[Sidenote: 4. Consideration in the House.]
In considering measures, the House often sits as a Committee of the
Whole. This merely means that the entire membership forms a great
committee, but there are some important differences between the House in
Committee of the Whole and the regular session. In Committee of the
Whole the Speaker does not preside (but calls some member to the chair);
the strict rules of procedure do not apply; one hundred members form a
quorum (in regular session a majority of the members are needed to
furnish a quorum) and there are no roll calls. In a word, the system
enables the House to do business with less formality. [Sidenote: 5.
Bills are then sent to the other chamber.] At any rate if the measure
safely passes the House, it is engrossed on parchment, signed by the
speaker, and sent up to the Senate where it goes through the whole
procedure of committee hearings and discussion on the floor.[117]
[Sidenote: 6. The executive approval.]
Having passed the Senate it is signed by the presiding officer of that
body and is then sent to the President for his signature. The President,
as will be shown a little later, may sign it, veto it, or allow it to
become a law without his signature.
[Sidenote: Conference committees.]
If one chamber amends a measure, and the other chamber agrees to the
amendment, the bill also goes directly to the President. But what
happens in case either the Senate or the House make amendments to which
the other chamber does not agree? That is just what very frequently
occurs. In such cases a conference committee is appointed, made up as a
rule of three members from each chamber. These conferees meet and try to
reach a common ground by compromise. Then, when they have agreed, they
report to their respective chambers and the latter must accept or reject
the conference report without further amendment.
[Sidenote: The value of experience in Congress.]
=Some Tricks of the Lawmaker’s Trade.=—Lawmaking is a skilled
profession; it takes the average congressman most of his first term to
learn just how it is done. He must acquire a knowledge of the rules,
written and unwritten, the traditions, and what may rightly be called
the “tricks of the trade”. Ability as an orator does not count for much,
particularly in the House. The house chamber is a big, noisy place where
only a leather-lunged speaker can make himself clearly heard.
Congressmen, moreover, do not take kindly to long speeches; they expect
members of the House to say what they have to say in five or ten
minutes. If a congressman desires to make an impression upon the voters
of his home district by sending them accounts of his able speeches in
their behalf, he can usually obtain from the House, by unanimous
consent, permission to have his speech printed at the public expense and
distributed without its ever having been delivered on the floor of the
chamber at all. When long speeches are made it is usually to waste the
time of Congress and prevent the passage of some measure to which the
speakers are opposed.[118]
[Sidenote: Filibusters.]
Attempts to talk a measure to death are known as “filibusters”. Both
chambers are now able to put an end to filibusters by applying rules
which shut off further debate when a specified majority of the members
so desire; but in the old days, before these rules were adopted,
senators sometimes kept the floor hour after hour all day and all night
long, talking on every irrelevant matter, reading long extracts from
books, and employing all their ingenuity to lengthen the debate. The
proceedings in the Senate are often interesting; but the visitor to the
House gallery is likely to be disappointed if he goes with the
expectation of hearing some good speech-making. The real work of the
House is done in committee.
[Sidenote: Classification of congressional powers.]
=The Powers of Congress.=—The powers of Congress, as the lawmaking
branch of the national government, are set forth in eighteen clauses of
the federal constitution. Hence it is customary to speak of the
“eighteen powers of Congress”, although there are in fact more than
eighteen separate powers, as anyone will find if he takes the trouble to
count them. These powers may be conveniently grouped together under
eight heads: (1) _financial_, the power to levy taxes and to borrow
money; (2) _commercial_, the power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several states; (3) _military_, the power to
declare war, to raise and support armies, to maintain a navy, and to
provide for organizing, arming, and calling forth the state militia; (4)
_monetary_, the power to coin money, to regulate the value thereof, and
to protect the currency against counterfeiting; (5) _postal_, the power
to establish post-offices and post roads; (6) _judicial_, the power to
constitute tribunals subordinate to the Supreme Court; (7)
_miscellaneous_, including powers in relation to bankruptcy,
naturalization, patents, copyrights, and the government of the national
capital; (8) _supplementary_, the power to make all laws which may be
found “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers”. This is a rather tedious classification of congressional
powers, but the section which enumerates these powers is, by all odds,
the most important part of the whole constitution and no one can claim
to know much about the government of the United States unless he
understands, at least in a general way, what these eighteen clauses
express and imply.
[Sidenote: Express and implied powers.]
It will be noted that all the powers except the last are _express_
powers, that is, they are conveyed to Congress in so many words. The
last is a grant of _implied_ authority, in other words it is a provision
for supplementing the express powers. Where Congress has the express
right to tax, to borrow, to regulate interstate commerce, to raise and
support armies, or to coin money, it has the implied right to make
whatever laws may be “necessary and proper” to carry its express powers
into full operation. Having the express power to borrow money, Congress
may therefore establish a system of banks if this is needed to render
more easy the operations of borrowing. Having the express power to
support armies, it may place almost any sort of restriction upon
industry in war time. By the implied powers clause of the constitution
the authority of Congress is given great elasticity.
=Are the Powers of Congress Broad Enough?=—If the words of the
constitution had been strictly interpreted, the powers of Congress would
now be too narrow for the work which a strong national government must
perform. It is easy to understand why the framers of the constitution
were cautious about conferring broad powers upon the new government.
They were anxious that no legislative despotism should be built up in
America. But as time passed the express powers of Congress have been
steadily widened by the process of interpreting them broadly so that
today the real authority of Congress is much greater than one would
suspect from a mere reading of the constitution. For all practical
purposes they are broad enough although it is probably true that if the
constitution were to be redrawn tomorrow, the authority of the national
government would be increased. Nearly all the amendments proposed in
recent years have been in the direction of expanding the powers of
Congress.
[Sidenote: The handicaps to good work.]
=The Efficiency of Congress.=—In comparison with the other great
parliaments and legislatures of the world, the Congress of the United
States does its work fairly well. It is rather too large in membership,
and the House of Representatives would probably gain in efficiency if it
were reduced in size. Another handicap to good work arises from the
enormous grist of measures which comes forward at every session.
Congress is always under constant pressure for time. Many millions are
often voted in a single hour and it is impossible for the congressmen to
go carefully through the long list of financial items. Until very
recently, the absence of a budget system afforded an incentive to
extravagance; but this defect has now been remedied.[119]
[Sidenote: The lack of leadership.]
Congress also lacks leadership. In European countries every parliament
and legislature has a recognized leader, usually called the prime
minister. He or his colleagues present the business and carry it
through.[120] There is nothing of this sort in either the Senate or the
House of Representatives. It is true that each political party has a
floor leader, but he has not effective control over his followers. The
chairmen of the various committees also supply a certain measure of
leadership, but their work is not unified. [Sidenote: The lobby.]
Mention should also be made of the pressure which is applied to
individual members of Congress by the lobbyists. These lobbyists are
hired workers, usually lawyers, who are paid to help get measures
through, or in some cases to prevent the passage of certain laws. They
are employed by corporations, or by labor organizations, or by anyone
who is deeply concerned in measures pending before Congress. They use
every form of persuasion in their efforts to have congressmen see their
side of the case. The “lobby” has been placed under various restrictions
in recent years, but it is still an influential factor.
[Sidenote: The influence of small groups in Congress.]
=The Congressional Oligarchies.=—We are in the habit of assuming that
the power in national lawmaking rests with the 531 men who constitute
the Senate and the House of Representatives; but the dominating
influence is in reality exercised by a relatively small group of men in
both chambers. The chairmen of important committees and certain others
of long congressional experience are the men whose influence counts. The
rest follow their lead for the most part. Important measures, moreover,
are often discussed in a caucus of the majority party, and the action of
the caucus is considered binding on all who attend it. A member in
either chamber, especially a new member, who displays a disposition to
be wholly independent, and to disregard the advice of his party leaders
or the decisions of his party caucus is not likely to get many favors
for himself or for his district. The senator or representative who
desires to be effective finds it necessary, therefore, to help others
with their plans whether he approves them heartily or not, in order that
he may be, in turn, helped with his own. It is almost always true that a
group of thirty or forty members, on the majority side, can secure the
passage of measures which they desire and can prevent the passage of
measures to which they are opposed.[121] In this respect the Congress of
the United States does not differ much from legislative bodies the world
over. Large deliberative bodies are invariably prone to follow the lead
of some relatively small group in their own membership; otherwise they
would never make headway, and the larger the chamber the more likely is
this to be true.
General References
JAMES BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 97-208;
WOODROW WILSON, _Congressional Government_, pp. 58-129;
C. A. BEARD, _American Government and Politics_, pp. 231-293; _Ibid._,
_Readings on American Government and Politics_, pp. 214-271;
EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the United States_, pp.
308-378;
W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the United States_, pp. 146-218;
S. W. MCCALL, _The Business of Congress_, pp. 43-84;
LYNN HAINES, _Your Congress_, pp. 67-109.
Group Problems
=1. Is it desirable to restrict the present powers of the Senate in
relation to treaties?= Reasons for giving the Senate special powers in
relation to treaties. The meaning of “advice and consent”. Washington’s
attitude and experience. The action of the Senate on important treaties
during the past hundred years. The practical difficulty of obtaining a
two-thirds majority. Confirmation as a barrier to secret diplomacy.
=References=: RALSTON HAYDEN, _The Senate and Treaties_, pp. 169-195; H.
C. LODGE, _The Senate of the United States_, pp. 1-31; EVERETT KIMBALL,
_National Government of the United States_, pp. 549-551; 573; S. B.
CRANDALL, _Treaties: Their Making and Enforcement_, pp. 67-92;
_Congressional Record_, 1919-1922.
=2. The personnel of Congress.= =References=: Types of men elected.
Their occupations at home. Their legislative experience. Are there too
many lawyers? Length of service. How the personnel might be improved.
(Material for this study may be had in the _Congressional Directory_,
and in the various autobiographical works such as JAMES G. BLAINE’S
_Twenty Years in Congress_; CHAMP CLARK’S _Autobiography_, etc.)
=3. The merits and faults of the committee system.= =References=: JAMES
BRYCE, _American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 156-166; S. W. MCCALL, _The
Business of Congress_, pp. 43-60; L. G. MCCONACHIE, _Congressional
Committees_, pp. 58-86; EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of the
United States_, pp. 344-356; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American
Federal Government_, pp. 257-264.
Short Studies
1. =The old and the new method of choosing Senators.= GEORGE H. HAYNES,
_The Election of Senators_, pp. 36-129.
2. =The procedure in impeachments.= W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the
United States_, pp. 168-173.
3. =The Speaker of the House.= C. A. BEARD, _American Government and
Politics_, pp. 280-289; M. P. FOLLETT, _The Speaker of the House of
Representatives_, pp. 296-330.
4. =The rights of minorities.= F. A. CLEVELAND and JOSEPH SCHAFER,
_Democracy in Reconstruction_, pp. 446-467.
5. =The general powers of Congress.= W. B. MUNRO, _Government of the
United States_, pp. 208-218.
6. =How Congress legislates.= EVERETT KIMBALL, _National Government of
the United States_, pp. 350-356; P. S. REINSCH, _Readings on American
Federal Government_, pp. 290-296.
7. =An Englishman’s observation on the work of Congress.= JAMES BRYCE,
_American Commonwealth_, Vol. I, pp. 191-208.
8. =The rules of the House and Senate.= EVERETT KIMBALL, _National
Government of the United States_, pp. 333-344.
9. =Obstruction in Congress.= S. W. MCCALL, _The Business of Congress_,
pp. 85-92.
10. =Party organizations in Congress.= W. W. WILLOUGHBY and LINDSAY
ROGERS, _Introduction to the Problem of Government_, pp. 334-351.
11. =The lobby.= P. S. REINSCH, _American Legislatures and Legislative
Methods_, pp. 228-298.
12. =The Library of Congress.= F. J. HASKIN, _American Government_, pp.
287-288.
Questions
1. Do the merits of the double-chamber system outweigh the objections?
Why should the members of the two chambers be chosen by different
methods? Name at least three different methods of selecting
representatives.
2. What is the present value of equal representation of the states in
the Senate? What legal and practical obstacles are there to changing
this system?
3. Look up and explain the following terms which are commonly used in
Congress: executive session; morning hour; union calendar; ranking
member; filibuster; leave to print; pigeon-holing a bill; pork barrel;
rider.
4. What are the practical difficulties which arise when the Senate
declines to confirm appointments proposed by the President?
5. Explain the difference between an impeachment and a bill of
attainder.
6. The Senate usually exercises more influence than the House in matters
of lawmaking. Can you give reasons why this should be so?
7. Tell how congressional districts are mapped out. Mark on an outline
map the districts in your state. Have any of them been gerrymandered?
8. The chairmanships of committees usually go to senior members. Do you
think this a wise or unwise practice?
9. What would be gained, and what would be lost by lengthening to four
years the term for which representatives are chosen?
10. Two women, Miss Rankin of Montana and Miss Robertson of Oklahoma,
have sat in Congress. What are the arguments for and against electing
women in future?
11. Members of the House of Representatives receive salaries of $7500
per year. Is this too much or too little? Give your reasons.
12. Congressmen are entitled to the free use of the mails. (This is
called the _franking_ privilege.) Some years ago one senator sent nearly
750,000 copies of his speeches through the mails free. Do you believe
this privilege should be withdrawn or retained?
13. Should the rules of the House provide for unlimited debate?
14. Can you suggest any practical way in which the work of Congress
might be improved?
Topics for Debate
1. The English practice of choosing non-resident representatives is
advantageous and should be adopted in the United States.
2. The states should be represented in the Senate according to their
respective populations.
3. The provision relating to a reduction in representation, whenever
citizens are excluded from voting (see Amendment XIV) should be
enforced.