|
Vocabulary > Politics > USA > House of Representatives
Digital ID: cph 3a05055
Source: digital file
from b&w film copy neg.
Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-pga-03229
(digital file from original print) ,
LC-USZ62-1218 (b&w film copy neg.)
Repository: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
Washington, D.C.
20540 USA
http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/pga/03200/03229v.jpg
Pictorial Americana
Selected Images from the Collections of the Library of Congress
U.S. CONGRESS
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/picamer/paUScong.html
House of Representatives / the House
http://www.house.gov/
http://www.house.gov/Welcome.shtml
http://judiciary.house.gov/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/opinion/l31house.html
What does the House do?
http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html
in the House
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13sun1.html
Representative
Rep.
House of Representatives > veto >
override
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-19-stemcells_x.htm
House of Representatives > reject
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE48S8X920080929
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-29-bailout-congress_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Financial-Meltdown.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-09-29-bailout-congress_N.htm
take oath
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-03-ellison_x.htm
the speaker of the House
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03boehner.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/politics/03hastert.html
House Speaker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1888805,00.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/10/official_haster.html
John A. Boehner - the 61st speaker of the House
2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05boehner.html
http://www.cagle.com/news/Boehner11/main.asp
http://www.cagle.com/news/Compromise11/main.asp
cartoons > Cagle > Bawling Boehner
http://www.cagle.com/news/Boehner11/main.asp
gavel
majority leader of the House of Representatives
House Republican leader
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-17-gop-leaders_x.htm
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio,
chairman of the Education
and the Workforce Committee
the House Homeland Security Committee
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/us/politics/08muslim.html
the House Appropriations Committee
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-19-house-committee-shakeup_x.htm
the House ethics committee
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27ethics.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-08-foley_x.htm
http://usatoday.com/news/pdf/2006-12-08-foley-report.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-18-foley-investigation_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-05-foley-ethics-committee_x.htm
the House Financial Services Committee
http://financialservices.house.gov/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22soll.html
House of Representatives > Committee Offices
http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.shtml
the House Ways and Means Committee
the panel's Social Security Subcommittee
House Judiciary Committee / House Committee on the Judiciary
http://judiciary.house.gov/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/us/politics/16interrogation.html
House panel / House committee > The Judiciary subcommittee on
commercial and administrative law
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-21-gonzales-prosecutors_N.htm
sex scandal
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-18-foley-investigation_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-05-foley-ethics-committee_x.htm
pork
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26spend.html
represent
contest for House Republican leader
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/politics/09cong.html
leadership battle
leadership election
contender
lobby
lobbying
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/politics/09cong.html
lobbyist
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/us/politics/25lobby.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-31-cover31_N.htm
vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13sun1.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806345.html
vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/politics/house-defies-veto-threat-on-hacking-bill.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20congress.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/business/29carried.html
along party lines
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/11auto.html
provision
Roll Call > Yeas / Nays
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml
House Vote on H.R.2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act
June 2009
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/477
Roll Call > The Newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955
http://www.rollcall.com/
http://www.rollcall.com/opinion/
filibuster /
filibuster
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/national/nationalspecial3/18patriot.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01conserv.html
http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/filibust.htm
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
cloture
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
C-SPAN Congressional Glossary
http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/alphalist.htm
approve
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/politics/house-defies-veto-threat-on-hacking-bill.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22health.html
bill
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/29/us/politics/AP-US-Gays-Military.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22health.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/opinion/17thu3.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-22-senate-funding-deadline_N.htm
disputed bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/us/politics/house-defies-veto-threat-on-hacking-bill.html
landmark bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/health/policy/22health.html
pass
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/29/us/politics/AP-US-Gays-Military.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-22-senate-funding-deadline_N.htm
pass legislation
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-25-iraq-vote_N.htm
nix
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-18-iraq-vote_x.htm
law
enactment of a law
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/enactlawtoc.html
lawmaking
lawmaker
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation > U.S. Congressional
Documents and Debates
Beginning with the Continental Congress in 1774,
America's national legislative bodies have kept records of their proceedings.
The records of the Continental Congress,
the Constitutional Convention, and the
United States Congress
make up a rich documentary history of the construction of the nation
and the development of the federal government and its role in the national life.
These documents record American history in the words of those who built our
government
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/opinion/hobbling-the-fight-against-terrorism.html
reconvene
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30cong.html
the Capitol
at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Monday
Representative J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois
Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the
Republican whip
Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House Republican whip
the open seat
— one where incumbents step aside because of age,
ambition, scandal or other considerations
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/us/politics/21colorado.html
subpoenas
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-21-gonzales-prosecutors_N.htm
earmarks - pet projects financed by Congress, usually out of the
public eye / earmark
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/earmarks/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/us/politics/13port.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/us/politics/05earmarks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11earmark.html
lame duck
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/opinion/23tues1.html
State of the Union
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/state_of_the_union_message_us/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28web-baker.html
at the State of the Union address
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/25/us/politics/sotu-closer-look.html
State of the Union Speech > Barack Obama
2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26speech.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26obama-text.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26assess.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26bai.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26tucson.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26repubs.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/25/us/politics/sotu-closer-look.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26scene.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/politics/26scene.html
State of the Union Speech > Barack Obama
2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/politics/27obama.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28watch.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28react.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28assess.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28health.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28debt.html
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/01/obama-state-of-the-union-play-by-play/1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-27-state-of-union-analysis_N.htm
http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/President-Obama-delivers-2010-State-of-the-Union/G1425
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-27-state-of-the-union-obama_N.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html
State of the Union Speech > Barack Obama > Cartoons
2010
http://www.cagle.com/news/StateUnion2010/main.asp
State of the Union speech > Barack Obama
2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/audio/2009/feb/26/guardian-daily-podcast
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/cartoon/2009/feb/26/president-obama-congressional-address-steve-bell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/feb/24/obama-speech
State of the Union speech
2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/29bush.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/29bushtext.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/washington/29assess.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/29response.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHUN90842120080129
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-28-sotuanalysis_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-28-sotueconomy_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-28-sotueconomy_N.htm
State of the Union speech
2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-23-speech-text_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1997467,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-23-bush-state-union_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-23-sotu-analysis_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-24-usa-iraq_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1997408,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1997413,00.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matthew_yglesias/2007/01/state_of_disunion.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1998068,00.html
State of the Union speech
2006
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-31-sotu_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-31-sotu-usat-analysis_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-31-dems-sotu_x.htm
State of the Union address / speech
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1127765,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1127773,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1127778,00.html
House of Representatives > Educational Resources
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml
House of Representatives > Office of the Clerk
http://clerk.house.gov/index.html
House of Representatives > Office of the Clerk > House History
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/technology/telegraph.html
The United States House of Representatives: Timeline of Milestone
Events
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/timeline/index.html
House of Representatives > House Journal
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html
Library of Congress > How Our Laws Are Made
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhj.html
National Archives > Center for Legislative Archives
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/index.html
Library of Congress > House Bills and Resolutions
Beginning with the 6th Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwhblink.html
THOMAS
In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, legislative information from the Library of
Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Congressional Budget Office
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html
Pictorial Americana
Selected Images from the Collections of the Library of Congress > U.S. Congress
http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/picamer/paUScong.html
House
Votes to Cut $60 Billion, Setting Up Budget Clash
February
19, 2011
The New York Times
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON
— The House early Saturday approved a huge package of spending cuts, slashing
more than $60 billion from domestic programs, foreign aid, and even some
military projects, as the new Republican majority made good on its pledge to
turn the grassroots fervor of the November elections into legislative action to
shrink the size and scope of government.
The vote, of 235 to 189, was a victory for the large, boisterous class of
fiscally conservative Republican freshmen that is fiercely determined to change
the ways of Washington and that forced party leaders to pursue far bigger cuts
than originally planned. It set the stage for a standoff with Senate Democrats
and the White House that each side has warned could lead to a shutdown of the
federal government early next month.
And it marked the opening salvo in what is likely to be a long, bitter clash of
philosophical ideas about fiscal policy, as Republicans repudiate the liberal,
Keynesian strategies that the Obama administration has relied on to navigate
through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
In Washington, the fight in the weeks ahead will focus on budget policy and the
looming need to raise the federal debt ceiling. But the push by Republicans for
spending cuts and new austerity is already shaking state capitals, including
Madison, Wis., and Columbus, Ohio, where labor unions have begun protesting
efforts to reduce benefits and weaken their collective bargaining rights.
The House approved its spending measure in the predawn darkness on Saturday
after four days and nights of free-wheeling floor debate — a veritable
ultra-marathon of legislating in which hundreds of amendments were put forward.
Republican leaders lost votes on some of those amendments, in what they said was
a testament to their commitment to allow a more open legislative process than
their recent predecessors.
Republicans only seemed to grow more excited as the final vote neared shortly
after 4:30 a.m.
“We have a mandate from the American people to cut spending,” declared
Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois.
Immediately after the vote, the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said in
a statement, “This week, for the first time in many years, the People’s House
was allowed to work its will — and the result was one of the largest spending
cuts in American history.” Mr. Boehner added, “We will not stop here in our
efforts to cut spending, not when we’re broke and Washington’s spending binge is
making it harder to create jobs.”
Just three Republicans opposed the bill, while 186 Democrats voted unanimously
against it.
The Republicans’ plan would quickly impose sharp spending reductions in nearly
every area of government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. But
Republicans will not have long to bask in the glory of their win, and their bill
has little or no chance of becoming law in its current form.
President Obama and Senate Democrats say the cuts would harm the fragile
economic recovery, and the White House had threatened to veto the bill even
before it was approved. The Democrats say Mr. Obama’s budget proposal, which
calls for a five-year freeze in many spending areas, is a more reasonable
approach. But Republicans have rejected it as insufficient.
Time is short. The stopgap measure now financing the government expires on March
4. And with Congress in recess next week, party leaders concede there is not
enough time to forge a deal, and that a short-term extension will be needed to
avert a shutdown of the government.
But with the rhetoric in the House only growing more strident over the four days
of debate, and politically-charged amendments dominating the action on Friday,
lawmakers and Washington at large have begun to face the possibility that even a
temporary accord will be difficult to achieve.
Mr. Boehner has said he would not agree to a short-term extension without added
cuts from spending, which is now being held generally at 2010 levels. Democrats,
meanwhile, have not shown any willingness to give ground, apparently betting
that Republicans will be held responsible for a shutdown as they were in 1995
during a standoff with the Clinton administration.
The House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, late
Friday night put forward a temporary extension of the stopgap measure that would
maintain expenditures as they are now, generally at 2010 levels, and avert a
shutdown through March 31. But Republicans quickly dismissed it.
Democrats, for weeks, have warned that Republicans were risking a shutdown by
showing no flexibility in the spending debate.
“The last thing the American people need is for Congressional Republicans or
Democrats to draw a line in the sand that hinders keeping the government open,”
Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference earlier on Friday. “Closing our government
would mean our men and women in uniform wouldn’t receive their paychecks and
veterans would lose critical benefits. Seniors wouldn’t receive their Social
Security checks and essential functions from food safety inspection to airport
security could come to a halt.”
Aides to the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, sought to
play down the possibility of a stalemate that would shutter the government but
accused Democrats of rooting for that outcome.
“Instead of cheering for a shutdown, Senate Democrats should join their
Republican colleagues in doing the hard work of cutting spending,” a spokesman
for Mr. McConnell, Don Stewart, said on Friday.
But Mr. McConnell showed no willingness to consider Ms. Pelosi’s proposed
temporary extension. “Freezing in place the current unsustainable spending
levels is simply unacceptable,” he said in a statement.
Even without a government shutdown, there were warnings that the Republican cuts
could cripple federal agencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for
instance, charged with carrying out a sweeping new financial regulation law,
will end up with $25 million less than last year, which was before the law was
adopted.
In a letter to employees on Thursday, the Social Security Administration warned
of potential furloughs “given the potential of reduced Congressional
appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year.”
The cuts even hit some programs that had support among Republican leaders,
including an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The House voted
to cancel the engine, achieving $450 million in short-term savings.
The Republicans who opposed the spending package were Representatives John
Campbell of California and Jeff Flake of Arizona, both of whom had advocated for
even bigger reductions, and Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina,
who often disagrees with his party.
Democrats on Friday suggested that even if Republican leaders want to avoid a
shutdown, Mr. Boehner might not be able to control his rank and file,
particularly the conservative freshmen who successfully led the charge for even
bigger spending reductions than Republican leaders initially proposed.
Up to the very end, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative bloc,
continued to push for even bigger cuts, putting forward an amendment on Friday
to slice $22 billion more. That amendment was defeated, as senior Republicans,
including the majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, and
veteran members of the Appropriations Committee, teamed up with Democrats to hit
the brakes.
But flush with enthusiasm on the fourth long day of debate, House Republicans on
Friday easily approved amendments to the spending package that would deny
government financing for Planned Parenthood, block money for the Democrats’ big
health care overhaul and bar new regulation of certain greenhouse gases.
The amendment to deny government funds to Planned Parenthood was put forward by
Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana. It was approved by a vote of
240 to 185.
Ms. Pelosi, who is a supporter of abortion rights, angrily denounced the vote as
a camouflaged effort by Republicans to prevent Americans from engaging in family
planning, which she said would actually undermine the Republicans’ larger goal
by leading to an increase in elective abortions.
“Perhaps we have to have a lesson in the birds and the bees around here for them
to understand that,” Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference. Mr. Pence, in a
statement, proclaimed a victory for opponents of abortion. “This afternoon’s
vote was a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life,” he said.
There were at least six different amendments approved to block federal agencies
from implementing the health care law or crucial components of the law.
For Republican freshmen, however, there was a potentially sobering lesson about
American democracy to be learned from the health care law that they hate so
much: after countless hours of drafting and floor debate, the health care bill
that Mr. Obama signed last year was the one written and approved by the Senate.
In much the same way, the spending measure being debated so feverishly on the
House floor has virtually no chance of being enacted into law, no matter how big
a victory celebration Republicans hold.
Just as the Senate ultimately controlled the health care debate, so too will it
control crucial negotiations in the current spending fight. Senate Republicans
have said they support the overall goals of their House counterparts but have
not committed to making identical cuts, and Democrats have a majority in the
chamber.
In an understated reminder of his chamber’s role in the process, Senator Daniel
K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
issued a statement expressing a desire for compromise.
“It is my sincere hope that all the parties will remain reasonable as we seek to
fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year,” he said.
“Neither house of Congress is in a position to dictate terms to the other, so I
remain hopeful that we will come to a sensible accommodation.”
House Votes to Cut $60 Billion, Setting Up Budget Clash,
NYT, 19.2.2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/us/politics/20congress.html
Build a
Bigger House
January 23,
2011
The New York Times
By DALTON CONLEY and JACQUELINE STEVENS
WITH the
Senate preparing to debate filibuster reform, now is a good time to consider a
similarly daunting challenge to democratic representation in the House: its
size. It’s been far too long since the House expanded to keep up with population
growth and, as a result, it has lost touch with the public and been overtaken by
special interests.
Indeed, the lower chamber of Congress has had the same number of members for so
long that many Americans assume that its 435 seats are constitutionally
mandated.
But that’s wrong: while the founders wanted to limit the size of the Senate,
they intended the House to expand based on population growth. Instead of setting
an absolute number, the Constitution merely limits the ratio of members to
population. “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every
30,000,” the founders wrote. They were concerned, in other words, about having
too many representatives, not too few.
When the House met in 1787 it had 65 members, one for every 60,000 inhabitants
(including slaves as three-fifths of a person). For well over a century, after
each census Congress would pass a law increasing the size of the House.
But after the 1910 census, when the House grew from 391 members to 433 (two more
were added later when Arizona and New Mexico became states), the growth stopped.
That’s because the 1920 census indicated that the majority of Americans were
concentrating in cities, and nativists, worried about of the power of
“foreigners,” blocked efforts to give them more representatives.
By the time the next decade rolled around, members found themselves reluctant to
dilute their votes, and the issue was never seriously considered again.
The result is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group
of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about
700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio
that today would mean a House with 1,500 members — or 5,000 if we match the
ratio the founders awarded themselves.
This disparity increases the influence of lobbyists and special interests: the
more constituents one has, the easier it is for money to outshine individual
voices. And it means that representatives have a harder time connecting with the
people back in their districts.
What’s needed, then, is a significant increase in the size of the House by
expanding the number, and shrinking the size, of districts. Doing so would make
campaigns cheaper, the political value of donations lower and the importance of
local mobilizing much greater.
Smaller districts would also end the two-party deadlock. Orange County, Calif.,
might elect a Libertarian, while Cambridge, Mass., might pick a candidate from
the Green Party.
Moreover, with additional House members we’d likely see more citizen-legislators
and fewer lifers. In places like New York or Chicago, we would cross at least
one Congressional district just walking a few blocks to the grocery store. Our
representatives would be our neighbors, people who better understood the lives
and concerns of average Americans.
More districts would likewise mean more precision in distributing them
equitably, especially in low-population states. Today the lone Wyoming
representative covers about 500,000 people, while her lone counterpart in
Delaware reports to 900,000.
The increase would also mean more elected officials working on the country’s
business, reducing the reliance on unaccountable staffers. Most of the House’s
work is through committees, overseeing and checking government agencies.
With more people in Congress, House committee members could see to this critical
business themselves — and therefore be more influential, since a phone call from
an actual member is a lot more effective than a request from the committee
staff.
True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates. But Internet
technology already provides effective low-cost management solutions, from Google
Documents to streaming interactive video to online voting.
The biggest obstacle is Congress itself. Such a change would require the noble
act — routine before World War I but unheard of since — of representatives
voting to diminish their own relative power.
So if such reform is to happen, it will have to be driven by grassroots
movements. Luckily, we are living in just such a moment: the one thing Move On
and the Tea Party can agree on is that the Washington status quo needs to
change. So far this year, that has meant shrinking government. But in this case,
the best solution might just be to make government — or at least the House of
Representatives — bigger.
Dalton Conley
is a professor of sociology, medicine and public policy at New York University
and the author of “Elsewhere, U.S.A.” Jacqueline Stevens is a professor of
political science at Northwestern and the author of “States Without Nations:
Citizenship for Mortals.”
Build a Bigger House, NYT, 23.1.2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html
G.O.P.
Captures House, but Not Senate
November 2,
2010
The New York Times
By JEFF ZELENY
Republicans
captured control of the House of Representatives on Tuesday and expanded their
voice in the Senate, riding a wave of voter discontent as they dealt a setback
to President Obama just two years after his triumphal victory.
A Republican resurgence, propelled by deep economic worries and a forceful
opposition to the Democratic agenda of health care and government spending,
delivered defeats to House Democrats from the Northeast to the South and across
the Midwest. The tide swept aside dozens of lawmakers, regardless of their
seniority or their voting records, upending the balance of power for the second
half of Mr. Obama’s term.
But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, narrowly prevailed and
his party hung onto control by winning hard-fought contests in California,
Delaware, Connecticut and West Virginia. Republicans picked up at least six
Democratic seats, including the one formerly held by Mr. Obama, and the party
will welcome Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky to their ranks,
two candidates who were initially shunned by the establishment but beloved by
the Tea Party movement.
“The American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box,” said Representative
John A. Boehner of Ohio, who is positioned to become the next speaker of the
House. “We have real work to do, and this is not the time for celebration.”
The president, who watched the election returns with a small set of advisers at
the White House, called Mr. Boehner shortly after midnight to offer his
congratulations and to talk about the way forward as Washington prepares for
divided government. Republicans won at least 56 seats, not including those from
some Western states where ballots were still being counted, surpassing the 52
seats the party won in the sweep of 1994.
The most expensive midterm election campaign in the nation’s history, fueled by
a raft of contributions from outside interest groups and millions in donations
to candidates in both parties, played out across a wide battleground that
stretched from Alaska to Maine. The Republican tide swept into statehouse races,
too, with Democrats poised to lose the majority of governorships, particularly
those in key presidential swing states, like Ohio, where Gov. Ted Strickland was
defeated.
One after another, once-unassailable Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold of
Wisconsin, Representatives Ike Skelton of Missouri, John Spratt of South
Carolina, Rick Boucher of Virginia and Chet Edwards of Texas fell to
little-known Republican challengers.
“Voters sent a message that change has not happened fast enough,” said Tim
Kaine, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Republicans did not achieve a perfect evening, losing races in several states
they had once hoped to win, including the Senate contests in Delaware and
Connecticut, because some candidates supported by the Tea Party movement knocked
out establishment candidates to win their nominations. But they did score
notable victories in some tight races, like Pat Toomey’s Senate run in
Pennsylvania.
Senator Reid said in a speech that he was “more determined than ever” after his
victory. “I know what it’s like to get back on your feet.”
The outcome on Tuesday was nothing short of a remarkable comeback for
Republicans two years after they suffered a crushing defeat in the White House
and four years after Democrats swept control of the House and Senate. It places
the party back in the driver’s seat in terms of policy, posing new challenges to
Mr. Obama as he faces a tough two years in his term, but also for Republicans —
led by Mr. Boehner — as he suddenly finds himself in a position of
responsibility, rather than being simply the outsider.
In the House, Republicans found victories in most corners of the country,
including five seats in Pennsylvania, five in Ohio, at least three in Florida,
Illinois and Virginia and two in Georgia. Democrats braced for the prospect of
historic defeats, more than the 39 seats the Republicans needed to win control.
Republicans reached their majority by taking seats east of the Mississippi even
before late results flowed in from farther West.
Throughout the evening, in race after race, Republican challengers defeated
Democratic incumbents, despite being at significant fund-raising disadvantages.
Republican-oriented independent groups invariably came to the rescue, helping
level of the playing field, including in Florida’s 24th Congressional District,
in which Sandy Adams defeated Representative Suzanne Kosmas; Virginia’s 9th
Congressional District, where Mr. Boucher, a 14-term incumbent, lost to Morgan
Griffith; and Texas’s 17th Congressional District, in which Mr. Edwards, who was
seeking his 11th term, succumbed to Bill Flores.
Democrats argued that the Republican triumph was far from complete, particularly
in the Senate, pointing to the preservation of Mr. Reid and other races. In
Delaware, Chris Coons defeated Christine O’Donnell, whose candidacy became a
symbol of the unorthodox political candidates swept onto the ballot in
Republican primary contests. In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin III, a Democrat,
triumphed over an insurgent Republican rival to fill the seat held for a
half-century by Senator Robert C. Byrd. And in California, Senator Barbara Boxer
overcame a vigorous challenge from Carly Fiorina, a Republican.
But Democrats conceded that their plans to increase voter turnout did not meet
expectations, party strategists said, and extraordinary efforts that Mr. Obama
made in the final days of the campaign appeared to have borne little fruit.
The president flew to Charlottesville, Va., on Friday evening, for instance, in
hopes of rallying Democrats to support Representative Tom Perriello, a freshman
who supported every piece of the administration’s agenda, but he was defeated
despite the president’s appeals to Democrats in a state that he carried two
years ago.
In governors’ races, Republicans won several contests in the nation’s middle.
They held onto governorships in Texas, Nebraska and South Dakota, and had seized
seats now occupied by Democrats in Tennessee, Michigan and Kansas. Sam
Brownback, a United States Senator and Republican, easily took the Kansas post
that Mark Parkinson, a former Republican turned Democrat, is leaving behind.
Though Democrats, who before the election held 26 governors’ seats compared to
24 for the Republicans, were expected to face losses, there were also bright
spots. In New York, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo easily defeated the
Republican, Carl P. Paladino, even as Republicans were expected to pick up seats
in the state legislature and the congressional delegation. In Massachusetts,
Gov. Deval Patrick won a second term.
As the election results rolled in, with Republicans picking up victories shortly
after polls closed in states across the South, East and the Midwest, the House
speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other party leaders made urgent appeals through
television interviews that there was still time for voters in other states to
cast their ballots.
But the mood in Democratic quarters was glum, with few early signs of optimism
in House or Senate races that were called early in the evening. Surveys that
were conducted with voters across the country also provided little sense of hope
for Democrats, with Republicans gaining a majority of independents,
college-educated people and suburbanites — all groups that were part of the
coalition of voters who supported Mr. Obama two years ago.
“We’ve come to take our government back,” Mr. Paul told cheering supporters who
gathered in Bowling Green, Ky. “They say that the U.S. Senate is the world’s
most deliberative body. I’m going to ask them to deliberate on this: The
American people are unhappy with what’s going on in Washington.”
The election was a referendum on President Obama and the Democratic agenda,
according to interviews with voters that were conducted for the National
Election Pool, a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press,
with a wide majority of the electorate saying that the country was seriously off
track. Nearly nine in 10 voters said they were worried about the economy and
about 4 in 10 said their family’s situation had worsened in the last two years.
The surveys found that voters were even more dissatisfied with Congress now than
they were in 2006, when Democrats reclaimed control from the Republicans.
Preliminary results also indicated an electorate far more conservative than four
years ago, a sign of stronger turnout by people leaning toward Republicans.
Most voters said they believed Mr. Obama’s policies would hurt the country in
the long run, rather than help it, and a large share of voters said they
supported the Tea Party movement, which has backed insurgent candidates all
across the country.
The Republican winds began blowing back in January when Democrats lost the seat
long held by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, with the victory of
Scott P. Brown serving as a motivating force for the budding Tea Party movement
and a burst of inspiration for Republican candidates across the country to step
forward and challenge Democrats everywhere.
On Tuesday, the president did not leave the grounds of the White House, taking a
respite from days of campaigning across the country, so he could meet with a
circle of top advisers to plot a way forward for his administration and his own
looming re-election campaign. The White House said Mr. Obama would hold a news
conference on Wednesday to address the governing challenges that await the new
Congress.
“My hope is that I can cooperate with Republicans,” Mr. Obama said in a radio
interview on Tuesday. “But obviously, the kinds of compromises that will be made
depends on what Capitol Hill looks like — who’s in charge.”
But even as the president was poised to offer a fresh commitment to
bipartisanship, he spent the final hours of the midterm campaign trying to
persuade Democrats in key states to take time to vote. From the Oval Office, Mr.
Obama conducted one radio interview after another, urging black voters in
particular to help preserve the party’s majority and his agenda.
“How well I’m able to move my agenda forward over the next couple of years is
going to depend on folks back home having my back,” Mr. Obama said in an
interview with the Chicago radio station WGCI, in which he made an unsuccessful
appeal for voters to keep his former Senate seat in Democratic hands.
There was little Democratic terrain across the country that seemed immune to
Republican encroachment, with many of the most competitive races being waged in
states that Mr. Obama carried strongly only two years ago. From the president’s
home state of Illinois to neighboring Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio — all
places that were kind to the Democratic ticket in 2008 — Republicans worked
aggressively to find new opportunities.
For all the drama surrounding the final day of the midterm campaign, more than
19 million Americans had voted before Tuesday, a trend that has grown with each
election cycle over the last decade, as 32 states now offer a way for voters to
practice democracy in far more convenient ways than simply waiting in line on
Election Day.
Megan
Thee-Brenan, David M. Herszenhorn and Michael Luo contributed reporting.
G.O.P. Captures House, but Not Senate, NYT, 2.11.2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03elect.html
House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change
June 27, 2009
The New York Times
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation on Friday intended to address
global warming and transform the way the nation produces and uses energy.
The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant
to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The
legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to
profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power
generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.
The bill’s passage, by 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against it, also
established a marker for the United States when international negotiations on a
new climate change treaty begin later this year.
At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets a limit on
overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers
and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves.
The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and
presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy.
President Obama hailed the House passage of the bill as “a bold and necessary
step.” He said in a statement that he looked forward to Senate action that would
send a bill to his desk “so that we can say, at long last, that this was the
moment when we decided to confront America’s energy challenge and reclaim
America’s future.”
Mr. Obama had lobbied wavering lawmakers in recent days, and Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore had made personal
appeals to dozens of fence-sitters.
As difficult as House passage proved, it is just the beginning of the energy and
climate debate in Congress. The issue now moves to the Senate, where political
divisions and regional differences are even more stark.
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, a co-sponsor of the
bill, called the vote a “decisive and historic action” that would position the
United States as a leader in energy efficiency and technology.
But the legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many
European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the
worst effects of global warming. And it pitted liberal Democrats from the East
and West Coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal
for electricity and on heavy manufacturing for jobs.
While some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others,
including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it. Industry officials
were split, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers opposing the bill and some of the nation’s biggest
corporations, including Dow Chemical and Ford, backing it.
Republican leaders called the legislation a national energy tax and predicted
that those who voted for the measure would pay a heavy price at the polls next
year.
“No matter how you doctor it or tailor it,” said Representative Joe Pitts,
Republican of Pennsylvania, “it is a tax.”
Only eight Republicans voted for the bill, which runs to more than 1,300 pages.
Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, stalled the vote by
using his privilege as a party leader to consume just over an hour by reading
from a 300-page amendment added in the early hours of Friday.
Apart from its domestic implications, the legislation represents a first step
toward measurable cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that administration officials
can point to when the United States joins other nations in negotiating a new
global climate change treaty later this year. For nearly 20 years, the United
States has resisted mandatory limits on heat-trapping emissions.
The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was in Washington on Friday to meet
with Mr. Obama, strongly endorsed the bill even though it fell short of European
goals for reducing the emissions of heat-trapping gases.
Mrs. Merkel, a longtime advocate of strong curbs on emissions, has been pushing
the United States to take a leading role before the climate negotiations, set
for December in Copenhagen.
After meeting with Mr. Obama, she said she had seen a “sea change” in the United
States on climate policy that she could not have imagined a year ago when
President George W. Bush was in office.
The House legislation reflects a series of concessions necessary to attract the
support of Democrats from different regions and with different ideologies. In
the months of horse-trading before the vote Friday, the bill’s targets for
emissions of heat-trapping gases were weakened, its mandate for renewable
electricity was scaled back, and incentives for industries were sweetened.
The bill’s sponsors were making deals on the House floor right up until the time
of the vote. They set aside money for new energy research and a hurricane study
center in Florida.
The final bill has a goal of reducing greenhouse gases in the United States to
17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by midcentury.
When the program is scheduled to begin, in 2012, the estimated price of a permit
to emit a ton of carbon dioxide will be about $13. That is projected to rise
steadily as emission limits come down, but the bill contains a provision to
prevent costs from rising too quickly in any one year.
The bill would grant a majority of the permits free in the early years of the
program, to keep costs low. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the
average American household would pay an additional $175 a year in energy costs
by 2020 as a result of the provision, while the poorest households would receive
rebates that would lower their annual energy costs by $40.
Several House members expressed concern about the market to be created in carbon
allowances, saying it posed the same risks as those in markets in other kinds of
derivatives. Regulation of such markets would be divided among the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
The bill also sets a national standard of 20 percent for the production of
renewable electricity by 2020, although a third of that could be met with
efficiency measures rather than renewable energy sources like solar, wind and
geothermal power.
It also devotes billions of dollars to new energy projects and subsidies for
low-carbon agricultural practices, research on cleaner coal and electric vehicle
development.
Mr. Gore, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, posted
an appeal on his blog for passage of the legislation.
“This bill doesn’t solve every problem,” Mr. Gore said, “but passage today means
that we build momentum for the debate coming up in the Senate and negotiations
for the treaty talks in December which will put in place a global solution to
the climate crisis. There is no backup plan.”
House Passes Bill to
Address Threat of Climate Change, NYT, 27.6.2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html
House
Passes Spending Bill,
and Critics Are Quick to Point Out Pork
February
26, 2009
The New York Times
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON
— The House on Wednesday passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill packed with
pet projects requested by Democrats and Republicans alike.
The 245-to-178 vote came just a week after President Obama signed one of the
largest spending bills in the nation’s history, a $787 billion measure meant to
rejuvenate a sluggish economy.
The new bill, a reflection of Democratic priorities, increases spending on
domestic programs by an average of 8 percent in the current fiscal year, which
began in October.
On Thursday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to send his budget for the next fiscal year
to Congress. He did not take a formal position on the bill passed by the House.
“It’s a big document,” a White House official said. “We are still reviewing it.”
Republicans, however, did not mince words in describing the spending bill as
wasteful. And one watchdog group said the bill provided nearly $8 billion for
more than 8,500 pet projects favored by lawmakers, including $1.7 million for a
honey bee laboratory in Weslaco, Tex.; $346,000 for research on apple fire
blight in Michigan and New York; and $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape
products, including wine.
Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana, said Mr. Obama’s call for
fiscal responsibility, in a speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday,
was “sandwiched between two wasteful spending bills.”
Representative Mark Steven Kirk, Republican of Illinois, pointed out that the
new bill came just two days after the White House held a forum to promote fiscal
restraint.
The legislation includes nine of the regular appropriations bills for this
fiscal year. Unable to reach agreement with President George W. Bush last year,
Congress provided most domestic agencies and programs with a short-term infusion
of cash, which runs out at the end of next week.
Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate have already negotiated and
agreed on the contents of the new legislation. But conservative Republican
senators could try to amend the bill, to pare it down or delete earmarks. If
they succeed, the bill would need to go back to the House before it could be
presented to the president.
The bill increases budgets for the Departments of Education, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation, among others.
Over all, it provides $19 billion more than Mr. Bush requested for the same
agencies and $31 billion more than what they got in the last fiscal year.
Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the bill “turns the
page once and for all on the last eight years.”
Democrats boasted that they had not included earmarks in the economic stimulus
bill, but lawmakers of both parties relished the opportunity to stuff the new
bill with pet projects.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, counted more than 8,500
“Congressionally designated projects” in the bill and said the cost of these
earmarks totaled $7.7 billion., up 3.4 percent from last year.
Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said it was unseemly for
Congress to finance so many pet projects at a time when “the Justice Department
is investigating the connection between earmarks and campaign contributions.”
By a vote of 226 to 182, the House killed a proposal by Mr. Flake calling on the
House ethics committee to investigate such connections.
Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, said earmarks were a small part of the bill and had
been fully disclosed. Without the earmarks, he said, “the White House and its
anonymous bureaucrats” would control all spending.
Moreover, Democrats said 40 percent of the spending on earmarks went to projects
that had been requested by Republicans.
Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the senior Republican on the
Appropriations Committee, said that to understand the magnitude of new federal
spending, one must look at the money in the omnibus bill and the money for the
same agencies in the economic stimulus law, which together total $680 billion.
That sum is 80 percent higher than spending for those agencies last year, he
said.
A number of policy changes are included in the bill. It would, for example, make
it easier for Americans to visit immediate relatives in Cuba. And it would
forbid Mexican trucks to operate outside certain commercial zones along the
border with the United States. The Teamsters union, which supported Mr. Obama’s
election last year, had sought the restriction.
Among the pet projects is one to help producers of genuine pork, in contrast to
the Congressional variety. The bill includes $1.8 million to conduct research in
Iowa on “swine odor and manure management.”
The legislation includes $173,000 for research on asparagus production in
Washington State; $206,000 for wool research in Montana, Texas and Wyoming; and
$209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production in Georgia.
It also includes $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass in Mississippi;
$1.2 million to control cormorants in Michigan, Mississippi, New York and
Vermont; $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah; and $162,000 to control
rodents in Hawaii.
Democrats also earmarked money for the presidential libraries of three
Democrats: Franklin D. Roosevelt ($17.5 million), John F. Kennedy ($22 million)
and Lyndon B. Johnson ($2 million).
The bill even includes earmarks requested by some lawmakers who have left
Congress, like Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and
Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana.
House Republicans have been divided on the merits of earmarks. Some, like Mr.
Flake and the minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, do not request earmarks.
But other Republicans, including many on the Appropriations Committee, do
request such projects.
In the Republican response to Mr. Obama’s speech on Tuesday night, Gov. Bobby
Jindal of Louisiana said Republicans lost the public’s trust in recent years
because they “went along with earmarks and big government spending in
Washington.”
House Passes Spending Bill, and Critics Are Quick to Point
Out Pork, NYT, 26.2.2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26spend.html
Related
British
monarchy > Queen Elizabeth II
British
monarchy > Prince Charles
democracy / dictatorship
politics
USA >
politics
USA > politics >
presidential elections
USA > politics > president
USA > politics /
legislation > Senate
diplomacy
Related
GovTrack.us
is a tool by Civic Impulse, LLC
to help the public research and track the activities in the
U.S. Congress,
promoting and innovating government transparency
and civic education through novel uses of technology.
(...)
Easily track the activities of the United States Congress.
Use GovTrack to keep tabs on your representatives in Congress
or to research pending legislation that might impact your life
or business.
http://www.govtrack.us/
|
