In the Senate, Majority Leader Reid often limits the number of amendments by filling the amendment tree. However, budget resolutions are the rare time that that Senators of both parties can offer an unlimited number of amendments. By law, all amendments offered must be dispensed with before final passage.  Known as a “vote-a-rama,” this unique occurrence allows for amendments to be brought up for consideration and voted on in succession after the time for debate has expired.

Budget resolutions operate under unique rules, established by public law.  Budget resolutions cannot be filibustered.  They are required to have up to 50 hours of debate divided evenly between the majority and minority. This includes debate on amendments, motions and points of order.  No one amendment can be debated more than two hours – preventing a “filibuster by amendment” strategy.  The one thing that is not counted against the 50-hour time limit is the time it takes to actually cast the votes – which is where “vote-a-rama” comes in.  The Senate debates and votes until the 50 hours run out.  At that moment, it proceeds to vote on all remaining pending amendments without any debate other than an announcement by the amendment’s sponsor as to what the amendment is about.

The Senate will hold dozens of roll call votes that can each take 15 minutes or more without any breaks.  As a result, in an exhausting process, the Senate will often vote through the night as sleep-deprived staffers try to track just what the heck is being voted on at any given moment. Disagreements may arise on any number of issues, and long nights will frustrate any normal person, but it is still imperative that each Senator or staffers remain focused and aware of every vote – though this may be easier said than done (especially when the NCAA basketball tournament tips off at the same time). Keith Hennessey, a former Senate Budget Committee staffer and the person who claims to have coined the term “vote-a-rama”, aptly describes how a Senator or aide feels throughout the night: “Everyone is usually exhausted during the vote-a-rama, which comes near the end of an arduous and usually conflict-ridden legislative battle.”

Long nights in the Senate are not the only sign that special procedures are in place for the budget resolutions. For instance, their counterparts in the House can become a bit confused a about the rules that govern the process – and with all the time between Senate budgets, it is hardly a surprise. Unaware that Senate rules allow for budget resolutions to be brought up for debate with a simple majority of votes, Representatives Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) and Alcee Hastings (D-FL) were skeptical of the Senate’s ability to get the bill past a filibuster, Roll Call reported. Their colleagues informed them that only 51 votes were needed to bring the resolution to the floor. (In all fairness to these Members, with all the time between Senate budgets, it is not surprising to hear that some had forgotten the rules that govern Senate budget procedures prior to the beginning of budget resolution debate.)

The White House chief of staff Jack Lew made a similar mistake regarding budget procedure. “You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support,” he said.  If Members of the House and the President’s own chief of staff do not understand how the budget process works, what chance does anyone have?  Unless, of course, they are faithful readers of this column.

Despite the Senate’s inability to pass budget resolutions over the past few years, we can see a new trend in the budget resolution debates: The Senate should get accustomed to pulling all-nighters. Perhaps in part due to the recent hyper-partisan nature of Washington, and the desire for both sides to have their ideas brought to the floor, the Senate has debated an increasing number of amendments over the past several years. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of amendments introduced from FY 2005-FY 2010 increased from 64 to 121. Of course, since it had been four years since the last budget resolution, perhaps this was also a case of pent-up demand.

It is also important to note that in the period since the Budget Act of 1974 reformed the process, FY 1999 was the only time before FY 2009 that more than 100 amendments were introduced. This increase is also significant considering that from 1975 to 2009, the Senate brought up an average of 46 amendments per budget resolution, passing an average of only 26. And while recently the Senate has increased the number of amendments introduced on the floor, the 63 amendments passed in the FY 2014 budget pales compared to the 101 that were adopted in the FY 2010 budget, the most ever.

Contrasting their legislative counterparts, the House has a fairly tame budget process once the bill is brought to the floor, since most of the grunt work is completed in committee. The largest number of amendments introduced and passed was in 1979, when 11 of 45 were approved. In reality, that year was anomaly, as very few amendments have been approved in era of the modern budget process.  This is largely due to the House’s ability to produce special rules which only allows an “amendment in the nature of a substitute”, where the full text of a different resolution would fully the replace the text of the resolution on the floor. The last amendment in the nature of a substitute to pass was in 1988, when Budget Chairman William Gray (D-PA) offered the text of his bill in place of the one being debated (to read more about amendments in the nature of a substitute, click here).

This is a great example of the stark contrast between the two chambers – the House is truly a majoritarian institution, while each Senator can operate independently of his leadership and offer amendments in his or her own interest. And though the parties may focus on a common theme, such as the Republican message of balancing the budget, it is an opportunity for each Senator to show their constituents that he or she is listening to their concerns.

And yet, there is also the issue of intraparty differences that exist within a two-party system.  In fact, several Democratic Senators that are up for reelection in 2014 voted against the budget, likely because they represent traditionally conservative states, and the Democrat budget resolution increased spending and raised taxes in line with President Obama’s stated budget preferences, causing a yes vote to be politically dangerous. So while being in the majority is most often an advantage, the Senate’s free-for-all amendment process may reveal a divide amongst members of the same party.

Outsider political viewers may consider the vote-a-rama a largely political show, but it is a great opportunity for Senators to show their independence and get their priorities considered by the full. Because the House budget is most often approved as a bulk package, this is also a tremendous opportunity for a Senator to champion an issue that was left out of the House budget. As Roll Call wrote, “one tool available during the vote-a-rama is the element of surprise. A senator may offer an amendment without giving colleagues notice.” This surprise may offend other Senators, but could also be the one vote that proves to be the difference between re-election and defeat for themselves — or maybe a colleague in the other party.

Mark Strand is the President of the Congressional Institute and Dan Risko is a staff assistant. The Sausage Factory blog is a Congressional Institute project dedicated to explaining parliamentary procedure, Congressional politics, and other issues pertaining to the legislative branch.

The House Democrats did precisely that recently when they refused to vote on an amendment, offered by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), that would have replaced the budget resolution being considered on the Floor. (When a Member offers an amendment, like the one in question, that would completely replace the underlying bill or another amendment, it is called an “amendment in the nature of a substitute”.)

When a bill or amendment is up for a vote, a Representative may vote “aye”, “no”, or “present”, which is a refusal to take sides. A “present” vote does not count towards or against the passage of a bill, but it contributes towards the quorum, which is the minimum number of Members required in attendance for the body to conduct business legally.

In this case, 171 Democrats voted “present”, 14 voted “no”, and 15 did not vote at all. The amendment failed 104-132.

Now in this case, the Democrats didn’t vote “present” because they hadn’t studied the amendment or because they were genuinely indifferent to it. They were using it to mess with the majority party’s legislative plans. The Washington Post reported that, shortly before the vote, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer urged his party to vote “present” because it “takes Democrats out of the equation so the American people can see just how extreme the Republican conference truly is”. Democrats contend that the Study Committee budget is extreme because it balances the budget four years from now (rather than a decade or longer), while sharply reducing entitlement benefits. Of course, this was the talking point. The real reason was to embarrass the Republicans.
The ideal result for the Democrats would have been if the RSC Budget had actually won and replaced the Ryan Budget.  This would have been a major humiliation for the Republican Party nationally, and would likely have resulted in pulling the budget from the Floor.  It would have had the effect of undoing four years of talking points about the lack of a Democrat budget in the Senate.  This was not far-fetched: To prevent this outcome a number of members of the RSC were forced to vote against their own amendment.

From a policy perspective, this was a risk-free move for the Democrats, even if the Republicans defeated the amendment. None of their priorities was really at risk in this strategy.

The Democrats’ attempt to portray its opponents as extreme is probably one of the most common tactics in American politics. Senate Republicans, for instance, tried to do essentially the same thing when they offered President Obama’s budget, which the Upper Chamber soundly defeated. Similarly, it’s also like offering “poison pill” amendments, which one party offers to force votes on politically unpalatable positions. This gives rise to “November Amendments” – or amendments whose entire purpose is to embarrass an opposition amendment by forcing a vote on something that will make a pithy, if misleading, 30-second campaign ad in the next election.

What is actually interesting is how the Democrats played the politics game, by most of them voting “present”. That’s the unusual part – not the attempt to politicize the legislative process. In the House, a body in which the majority party can enjoy an almost totalitarian control over the legislative process, the minority has few tools at its disposal to shape legislation on the Floor. In this case, they engaged in what might be called  “parliamentary jujitsu.” In jujitsu, a competitor tries to use his opponent’s momentum and weight against him; here the Democrats cleverly used the amendment process against the Republicans. For instance, as noted by the Politico, if the Democrats had voted “no”, some Republicans could have voted “yes” to position themselves as strong conservatives, knowing full well that the budget would never pass. Thus, the Democrats used a “divide-and-conquer” strategy both to try to embarrass the Republican leadership and exacerbate tensions between the conservative and the “even-more-conservative” members of the GOP Conference.

The Democrats tried this maneuver in 2011 as well. But other than that, it’s rarely used. During this Congress, on most recorded votes, no one has voted “present”. Most of the times when there is a present vote, only one person votes that way – usually because they have declared a personal conflict of interest or to make a political point; aside from the vote in question today, only twice this Congress has more than one person voted present, and even then, it was only two people.

Voting present in this case was a legislative tactic. As one expert pointed out, sometimes the majority party relies on the minority party to either ensure a measure fails or succeeds. When the minority votes present en masse, they are forcing the majority party leadership to work extra hard to round up enough votes to guarantee their desired outcome.

The Republicans could have avoided all this by resorting to royalty.  There are two procedural tools the majority often uses know as the King and Queen of the Hill.  These are special rules that give the majority greater control over possible outcomes.

Normally when a substitute amendment replaces a bill, no further amendments are allowed.  That would have been the case had the RSC Budget passed.  But, a King of the Hill special rule issued by the Rules Committee allows votes on multiple substitutes with the stipulation that the last one to pass trumps all the others.  Of course the substitute preferred by the majority party is positioned to be the final substitute voted on.  For instance, had the RSC Budget passed, it would not have mattered as long as the Ryan budget received a majority of votes at the end.  Ryan would have been King of the Hill.

This may sound like dirty pool, but it was intended to allow members of both parties to cast “show votes” for certain budgets, knowing that in the end, the responsible thing would be done.  Another substitute traditionally offered besides the RSC Budget is the Congressional Black Caucus budget.  As the RSC budget allows conservative members to thump their chests, the Congressional Black Caucus budget allowed liberals to cast a vote popular with their constituents.  As long as the King of the Hill rules was in effect, Members did not have to worry about their more parochial amendment actually passing.

A Queen of the Hill rule is only slightly different – this allows for multiple substitutes, but in this case, the substitute with the most votes is declared the winner – slightly more risky than the rigged King of the Hill rule, but less dangerous than allowing a substitute to eliminate the Budget Committee’s carefully crafted budget blueprint.

For whatever reason, the Republican leadership did not resort to the royal options, created the opportunity for parliamentary mischief by the Democrat Whip.

Since the “present” vote tactic is used so infrequently, it is hard to say how useful it will be. Hoyer said that this was done to show the American people how “extreme” the Republicans are. The American people were not paying attention to this vote, so the only way it will become an issue for Republicans is if Democratic attack ads are particularly effective. However, those would most likely only be successful in competitive districts, in which cases, the Republicans probably voted against the amendment anyways. So we can safely conclude the move has primarily benefited the sundry Washington legislative procedure wonks (like us), who get all jazzed up over rarely used parliamentary tactics.

Mark Strand is the President of the Congressional Institute and Timothy Lang is a research assistant. The Sausage Factory blog is a Congressional Institute project dedicated to explaining parliamentary procedure, Congressional politics, and other issues pertaining to the legislative branch.

Thus began one of the rarest and most spectacular parliamentary moves in Washington: Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky engaged in a “talking filibuster” earlier this month. He spoke for almost 13 hours—one of the longest in Senate history—to delay the vote on CIA director John Brennan in order to force the Obama Administration to answer whether it could use drone strikes to kill American citizens on U.S. soil accused of engaging in terrorist activities.

The simplest definition of a filibuster is any parliamentary maneuver used to delay or totally prevent a vote on some item of business in the Senate. Normally, there are no time limits for debate in the Upper House, and each Senator has the prerogative to hold the Floor for as long as he would like, so individual Members have a number of ways to stop up the Senate. The archetypal filibuster is when a Senator takes to the floor and simply starts speaking without stopping for hours, as Senator Paul did last week. Senator Paul even referenced Lewis Carroll and Alice in Wonderland (though this was far more entertaining than when Senator Strom Thurmond read the Washington, DC, phone book aloud)

A talking filibuster like this was a throw back to the Frank Capra Academy Award-winning film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In fact, as the day went on, fellow Republicans came the Senate Chamber to support Senator Paul, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was even drawn away from his TV at home around 10:30 pm—after Paul had been on the floor for some 10 hours. At one point during the day, Illinois Senator Mark Kirk took the floor and delivered Paul an apple and a thermos of hot tea—a reference to Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster nourishment in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The hashtag #standwithrand lit up the Twitterverse as well.

Modern Senate rules have made the talking filibuster of the Chamber’s history rare.  In recent years, most filibusters have been silent.  According to Surviving Inside Congress:

…rule changes to make cloture easier to obtain have all but rendered the one-man filibuster, made famous by Mr. Smith, extinct. The onus was previously on Senators conducting filibusters to find creative ways to keep control of the floor, but the current rules have taken the work and the embarrassment out of the practice. It enables a minority party with more than 41 seats to effectively control much of the Senate agenda without being perceived by the public as obstructionist. Debate on legislation continues until the majority gets 60 votes for passage or until everyone wearies of the debate and gives up on the measure under consideration.

The theatrics of Senator Paul’s filibuster aside, the event is important because it illustrates that the maneuver is still useful in protecting minority rights. In recent years, the filibuster has come under fire, with opponents charging that the minority party is simply using it to obstruct for the sake of obstruction and party politics. Senator Paul’s filibuster proves that is not necessarily the case. He had been troubled at the Obama Administration’s answer to a question on whether it could use unmanned drones to kill American citizens on American soil without due process when suspected of terrorist activities. He wanted a clear-cut answer—was this possible? In the end, Attorney General Eric Holder sent the Senator a short, two-sentence letter assuring him that the President could not attack American citizens without observing due process

Senator Paul’s stand illustrates the principle that the abuse of something doesn’t render its use invalid. He took a stand on principle, and the filibuster was the key to securing the answer he wanted.

(For those wanting to relive Senator Paul’s filibuster, it is available on YouTube. For information on the longest filibusters, click here.)

Mark Strand is the President of the Congressional Institute and Timothy Lang is a research assistant. The Sausage Factory blog is a Congressional Institute project dedicated to explaining parliamentary procedure, Congressional politics, and other issues pertaining to the legislative branch.

Although each Member is responsible for holding his or her own competition, each year, two Representatives serve as Co-Chairs for the Congressional Art Competition. The Co-Chairmanship is bipartisan, and the Members serve a one-year term. These Members act as liaisons to their colleagues, staff and other House officials that assist in producing the exhibit. They will also welcome the winning students to Washington at a reception in June. The Co-Chairs for the 2013 Congressional Art Competition are Representative Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR).

The Congressional Art Competition culminates in receptions for the winners in June. Each winner is invited to a reception where they can meet with others from across the country. Mark Strand, who is the President of the Congressional Institute, and the Competition’s two Co-Chairs welcome the winners at a program held at the Capitol Visitor Center. The Co-Chairs each select an artist or a member of the artistic community from their districts to speak to the winners. While these speakers may vary in style and substance, the theme of their presentation is usually about their experiences as a professional artist.

Last year, over 400 Members of Congress participated, and it is expected that a record number will participate again this year. Since the Competition’s founding in 1982, an estimated 700,000 students have entered artwork in district competitions in all fifty states and most territories. There is no “overall” or “national” winner.

You can find more information about the Congressional Art Competition by clicking on your Representative’s link below. Some Members of Congress did not have information about this year’s Congressional Art Competition on their website, and some may have more up-to-date information than what is listed. Additionally, the submission deadlines for some districts have already passed. We are not responsible for the content posted on Members’ web pages, so please contact your Representative’s office for the most recent information.

Alabama

Hon. Jo Bonner, AL-01
Hon. Martha Roby, AL-02
Hon. Mike D. Rogers, AL-03
Hon. Robert Aderholt, AL-04
Hon. Mo Brooks, AL-05
Hon. Spencer Bachus, AL-06
Hon. Terri Sewell, AL-07

Alaska

Hon. Don Young, AK-AL

American Samoa

Hon. Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS-AL

Arizona

Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ-01
Hon. Ron Barber, AZ-02
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, AZ-03
Hon. Paul Gosar, AZ-04
Hon. Matt Salmon, AZ-05
Hon. David Schweikert, AZ-06
Hon. Ed Pastor, AZ-07
Hon. Trent Franks, AZ-08
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema, AZ-09

Arkansas

Hon. Rick Crawford, AR-01
Hon. Tim Griffin, AR-02
Hon. Steve Womack, AR-03
Hon. Tom Cotton, AR-04

California

Hon. Doug LaMalfa, CA-01
Hon. Jared Huffman, CA-02
Hon. John Garamendi, CA-03
Hon. Tom McClintock, CA-04
Hon. Mike Thompson, CA-05
Hon. Doris Matsui, CA-06
Hon. Ami Bera, CA-07
Hon. Paul Cook, CA-08
Hon. Jerry McNerney, CA-09
Hon. Jeff Denham, CA-10
Hon. George Miller, CA-11
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, CA-12
Hon. Barbara Lee, CA-13
Hon. Jackie Speier, CA-14
Hon. Eric Swalwell, CA-15
Hon. Jim Costa, CA-16
Hon. Mike M. Honda, CA-17
Hon. Anna Eshoo, CA-18
Hon. Zoe Lofgren, CA-19
Hon. Sam Farr, CA-20
Hon. David Valadao, CA-21
Hon. Devin Nunes, CA-22
Hon. Kevin McCarthy, CA-23
Hon. Lois Capps, CA-24
Hon. Howard McKeon, CA-25
Hon. Julia Brownley, CA-26
Hon. Judy Chu, CA-27
Hon. Adam Schiff, CA-28
Hon. Tony Cardenas, CA-29
Hon. Brad Sherman, CA-30
Hon. Gary Miller, CA-31
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, CA-32
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, CA-33
Hon. Xavier Becerra, CA-34
Hon. Gloria Negrete McLeod, CA-35
Hon. Raul Ruiz, CA-36
Hon. Karen Bass, CA-37
Hon. Linda T. Sanchez, CA-38
Hon. Edward Royce, CA-39
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard, CA-40
Hon. Mark Takano, CA-41
Hon. Ken Calvert, CA-42
Hon. Maxine Waters, CA-43
Hon. Janice Hahn, CA-44
Hon. John Campbell, CA-45
Hon. Loretta Sanchez, CA-46
Hon. Alan Lowenthal, CA-47
Hon. Dana Rohrabacher, CA-48
Hon. Darrell Issa, CA-49
Hon. Duncan D. Hunter, CA-50
Hon. Juan Vargas, CA-51
Hon. Scott Peters, CA-52
Hon. Susan A. Davis, CA-53

Colorado

Hon. Diana L. DeGette, CO-01
Hon. Jared Polis, CO-02
Hon. Scott Tipton, CO-03
Hon. Cory Gardner, CO-04
Hon. Doug Lamborn, CO-05
Hon. Mike Coffman, CO-06
Hon. Ed Perlmutter, CO-07

Connecticut

Hon. John B. Larson, CT-01
Hon. Joseph Courtney, CT-02
Hon. Rosa DeLauro, CT-03
Hon. Jim Himes, CT-04
Hon. Elizabeth Esty, CT-05

Delaware

Hon. John Carney, DE-AL

District of Columbia

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC-AL

Florida

Hon. Jeff Miller, FL-01
Hon. Steve Southerland, FL-02
Hon. Ted Yoho, FL-03
Hon. Ander Crenshaw, FL-04
Hon. Corrine Brown, FL-05
Hon. Ron DeSantis, FL-06
Hon. John Mica, FL-07
Hon. Bill Posey, FL-08
Hon. Alan Grayson, FL-09
Hon. Daniel Webster, FL-10
Hon. Richard Nugent, FL-11
Hon. Gus Bilirakis, FL-12
Hon. C.W. Bill Young, FL-13
Hon. Kathy Castor, FL-14
Hon. Dennis Ross, FL-15
Hon. Vern Buchanan, FL-16
Hon. Tom Rooney, FL-17
Hon. Patrick Murphy, FL-18
Hon. Trey Radel, FL-19
Hon. Alcee L. Hastings, FL-20
Hon. Ted Deutch, FL-21
Hon. Lois Frankel, FL-22
Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, FL-23
Hon. Frederica Wilson, FL-24
Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart, FL-25
Hon. Joe Garcia, FL-26
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL-27

Georgia

Hon. Jack Kingston, GA-01
Hon. Sanford Bishop, GA-02
Hon. Lynn Westmoreland, GA-03
Hon. Hank Johnson, GA-04
Hon. John Lewis, GA-05
Hon. Tom Price, M.D., GA-06
Hon. Rob Woodall, GA-07
Hon. Austin Scott, GA-08
Hon. Doug Collins, GA-09
Hon. Paul Broun, M.D., GA-10
Hon. Phil Gingrey, M.D., GA-11
Hon. John Barrow, GA-12
Hon. David Scott, GA-13
Hon. Tom Graves, GA-14

Guam

Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU-AL

Hawaii

Hon. Colleen Hanabusa, HI-01
Hon. Tulsi Gabbard, HI-02

Idaho

Hon. Raul Labrador, ID-01
Hon. Michael Simpson, ID-02

Illinois

Hon. Bobby Rush, IL-01
Vacant, IL-02
Hon. Daniel Lipinski, IL-03
Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez, IL-04
Hon. Mike Quigley, IL-05
Hon. Peter Roskam, IL-06
Hon. Danny K. Davis, IL-07
Hon. Tammy Duckworth, IL-08
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, IL-09
Hon. Brad Schneider, IL-10
Hon. Bill Foster, IL-11
Hon. William Enyart, IL-12
Hon. Rodney Davis, IL-13
Hon. Randy Hultgren, IL-14
Hon. John M. Shimkus, IL-15
Hon. Adam Kinzinger, IL-16
Hon. Cheri Bustos, IL-17
Hon. Aaron Schock, IL-18

Indiana

Hon. Peter J. Visclosky, IN-01
Hon. Jackie Walorski, IN-02
Hon. Marlin Stutzman, IN-03
Hon. Todd Rokita, IN-04
Hon. Susan Brooks, IN-05
Hon. Luke Messer, IN-06
Hon. Andre Carson, IN-07
Hon. Larry Bucshon, IN-08
Hon. Todd Young, IN-09

Iowa

Hon. Bruce Braley, IA-01
Hon. Dave Loebsack, IA-02
Hon. Tom Latham, IA-03
Hon. Steve King, IA-04

Kansas

Hon. Tim Huelskamp, KS-01
Hon. Lynn Jenkins, KS-02
Hon. Kevin Yoder, KS-03
Hon. Mike Pompeo, KS-04

Kentucky

Hon. Edward Whitfield, KY-01
Hon. Brett Guthrie, KY-02
Hon. John Yarmuth, KY-03
Hon. Thomas Massie, KY-04
Hon. Harold Rogers, KY-05
Hon. Andy Barr, KY-06

Louisiana

Hon. Steve Scalise, LA-01
Hon. Cedric Richmond, LA-02
Hon. Charles Boustany, LA-03
Hon. John Fleming, LA-04
Hon. Rodney Alexander, LA-05
Hon. Bill Cassidy, LA-06

Maine

Hon. Chellie Pingree, ME-01
Hon. Michael H. Michaud, ME-02

Maryland

Hon. Andy Harris, MD-01
Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, MD-02
Hon. John Sarbanes, MD-03
Hon. Donna Edwards, MD-04
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, MD-05
Hon. John Delaney, MD-06
Hon. Elijah Cummings, MD-07
Hon. Chris Van Hollen, MD-08

Massachusetts

Hon. Richard E. Neal, MA-01
Hon. James P. McGovern, MA-02
Hon. Niki Tsongas, MA-03
Hon. Joe Kennedy III, MA-04
Hon. Edward J. Markey, MA-05
Hon. John F. Tierney, MA-06
Hon. Michael Capuano, MA-07
Hon. Stephen F. Lynch, MA-08
Hon. William Keating, MA-09

Michigan

Hon. Dan Benishek, MI-01
Hon. Bill Huizenga, MI-02
Hon. Justin Amash, MI-03
Hon. Dave Camp, MI-04
Hon. Daniel Kildee, MI-05
Hon. Fred Upton, MI-06
Hon. Tim Walberg, MI-07
Hon. Mike Rogers, MI-08
Hon. Sander M. Levin, MI-09
Hon. Candice Miller, MI-10
Hon. Kerry Bentivolio, MI-11
Hon. John D. Dingell, MI-12
Hon. John Conyers, MI-13
Hon. Gary Peters, MI-14

Minnesota

Hon. Tim Walz, MN-01
Hon. John Kline, MN-02
Hon. Erik Paulsen, MN-03
Hon. Betty McCollum, MN-04
Hon. Keith Ellison, MN-05
Hon. Michele Bachmann, MN-06
Hon. Collin C. Peterson, MN-07
Hon. Rick Nolan, MN-08

Mississippi

Hon. Alan Nunnelee, MS-01
Hon. Bennie Thompson, MS-02
Hon. Gregg Harper, MS-03
Hon. Steven Palazzo, MS-04

Missouri

Hon. William Lacy Clay, MO-01
Hon. Ann Wagner, MO-02
Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer, MO-03
Hon. Vicky Hartzler, MO-04
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, MO-05
Hon. Samuel B. Graves, MO-06
Hon. Billy Long, MO-07
Vacant, MO-08

Montana

Hon. Steve Daines, MT-AL

Nebraska

Hon. Jeff Fortenberry, NE-01
Hon. Lee Terry, NE-02
Hon. Adrian Smith, NE-03

Nevada

Hon. Dina Titus, NV-01
Hon. Mark Amodei, NV-02
Hon. Joe Heck, NV-03
Hon. Steven Horsford, NV-04

New Hampshire

Hon. Carol Shea-Porter, NH-01
Hon. Ann Kuster, NH-02

New Jersey

Hon. Robert E. Andrews, NJ-01
Hon. Frank LoBiondo, NJ-02
Hon. Jon Runyan, NJ-03
Hon. Christopher H. Smith, NJ-04
Hon. Scott Garrett, NJ-05
Hon. Frank Pallone, NJ-06
Hon. Leonard Lance, NJ-07
Hon. Albio Sires, NJ-08
Hon. William J. Pascrell, NJ-09
Hon. Donald Payne Jr., NJ-10
Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen, NJ-11
Hon. Rush Holt, NJ-12

New Mexico

Hon. Michelle Lujan Grisham, NM-01
Hon. Steve Pearce, NM-02
Hon. Ben R. Lujan, NM-03

New York

Hon. Timothy Bishop, NY-01
Hon. Peter King, NY-02
Hon. Steven J. Israel, NY-03
Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, NY-04
Hon. Gregory W. Meeks, NY-05
Hon. Grace Meng, NY-06
Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez, NY-07
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, NY-08
Hon. Yvette Clarke, NY-09
Hon. Jerrold Nadler, NY-10
Hon. Mike Grimm, NY-11
Hon. Carolyn Maloney, NY-12
Hon. Charles B. Rangel, NY-13
Hon. Joseph Crowley, NY-14
Hon. Jose E. Serrano, NY-15
Hon. Eliot L. Engel, NY-16
Hon. Nita M. Lowey, NY-17
Hon. Sean Maloney, NY-18
Hon. Chris Gibson, NY-19
Hon. Paul Tonko, NY-20
Hon. Bill Owens, NY-21
Hon. Richard Hanna, NY-22
Hon. Tom Reed, NY-23
Hon. Dan Maffei, NY-24
Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, NY-25
Hon. Brian Higgins, NY-26
Hon. Chris Collins, NY-27

North Carolina

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, NC-01
Hon. Renee Ellmers, NC-02
Hon. Walter Jones, NC-03
Hon. David E. Price, NC-04
Hon. Virginia Foxx, NC-05
Hon. J. Howard Coble, NC-06
Hon. Mike McIntyre, NC-07
Hon. Richard Hudson, NC-08
Hon. Robert Pittenger, NC-09
Hon. Patrick McHenry, NC-10
Hon. Mark Meadows, NC-11
Hon. Melvin L. Watt, NC-12
Hon. George Holding, NC-13

North Dakota

Hon. Kevin Cramer, ND-AL

Northern Marianas Islands

Hon. Gregorio Sablan, CNMI-AL

Ohio

Hon. Steve Chabot, OH-01
Hon. Brad Wenstrup, OH-02
Hon. Joyce Beatty, OH-03
Hon. Jim Jordan, OH-04
Hon. Bob Latta, OH-05
Hon. Bill Johnson, OH-06
Hon. Bob Gibbs, OH-07
Hon. John A. Boehner, OH-08
Hon. Marcy Kaptur, OH-09
Hon. Mike Turner, OH-10
Hon. Marcia Fudge, OH-11
Hon. Patrick J. Tiberi, OH-12
Hon. Tim Ryan, OH-13
Hon. David Joyce, OH-14
Hon. Steve Stivers, OH-15
Hon. Jim Renacci, OH-16

Oklahoma

Hon. Jim Bridenstine, OK-01
Hon. Markwayne Mullin, OK-02
Hon. Frank Lucas, OK-03
Hon. Tom Cole, OK-04
Hon. James Lankford, OK-05

Oregon

Hon. Suzanne Bonamici, OR-01
Hon. Greg Walden, OR-02
Hon. Earl Blumenauer, OR-03
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, OR-04
Hon. Kurt Schrader, OR-05

Pennsylvania

Hon. Robert A. Brady, PA-01
Hon. Chaka Fattah, PA-02
Hon. Mike Kelly, PA-03
Hon. Scott Perry, PA-04
Hon. Glenn Thompson Jr. , PA-05
Hon. James Gerlach, PA-06
Hon. Patrick Meehan, PA-07
Hon. Michael Fitzpatrick, PA-08
Hon. Bill Shuster, PA-09
Hon. Thomas Marino, PA-10
Hon. Lou Barletta, PA-11
Hon. Keith Rothfus, PA-12
Hon. Allyson Schwartz, PA-13
Hon. Michael Doyle, PA-14
Hon. Charles Dent, PA-15
Hon. Joseph Pitts, PA-16
Hon. Matthew Cartwright, PA-17
Hon. Tim Murphy, PA-18

Puerto Rico

Hon. Pedro Pierluisi, PR-AL

Rhode Island

Hon. David Cicilline, RI-01
Hon. James R. Langevin, RI-02

South Carolina

Vacant, SC-01
Hon. Joe Wilson, SC-02
Hon. Jeff Duncan, SC-03
Hon. Trey Gowdy, SC-04
Hon. Mick Mulvaney, SC-05
Hon. James Clyburn, SC-06
Hon. Tom Rice, SC-07

South Dakota

Hon. Kristi Noem, SD-AL

Tennessee

Hon. Phil Roe, TN-01
Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., TN-02
Hon. Chuck Fleischmann, TN-03
Hon. Scott DesJarlais, TN-04
Hon. Jim Cooper, TN-05
Hon. Diane Black, TN-06
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, TN-07
Hon. Stephen Fincher, TN-08
Hon. Steve Cohen, TN-09

Texas

Hon. Louie Gohmert, TX-01
Hon. Ted Poe, TX-02
Hon. Sam Johnson, TX-03
Hon. Ralph M. Hall, TX-04
Hon. Jeb Hensarling, TX-05
Hon. Joe Barton, TX-06
Hon. John Culberson, TX-07
Hon. Kevin Brady, TX-08
Hon. Al Green, TX-09
Hon. Michael McCaul, TX-10
Hon. K. Michael Conaway, TX-11
Hon. Kay Granger, TX-12
Hon. Mac Thornberry, TX-13
Hon. Randy Weber, TX-14
Hon. Ruben E. Hinojosa, TX-15
Hon. Beto O’Rourke, TX-16
Hon. Bill Flores, TX-17
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee, TX-18
Hon. Randy Neugebauer, TX-19
Hon. Joaquin Castro, TX-20
Hon. Lamar Smith, TX-21
Hon. Pete Olson, TX-22
Hon. Pete Gallego, TX-23
Hon. Kenny Marchant, TX-24
Hon. Roger Williams, TX-25
Hon. Michael Burgess, TX-26
Hon. R. Blake Farenthold, TX-27
Hon. Henry Cuellar, TX-28
Hon. Gene Green, TX-29
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX-30
Hon. John R. Carter, TX-31
Hon. Pete Sessions, TX-32
Hon. Marc Veasey, TX-33
Hon. Filemon Vela, TX-34
Hon. Lloyd Doggett, TX-35
Hon. Steve Stockman, TX-36

Utah

Hon. Rob Bishop, UT-01
Hon. Chris Stewart, UT-02
Hon. Jason Chaffetz, UT-03
Hon. Jim Matheson, UT-04

Vermont

Hon. Peter Welch, VT-AL

Virginia

Hon. Rob Wittman, VA-01
Hon. Scott Rigell, VA-02
Hon. Robert C. Scott, VA-03
Hon. J. Randy Forbes, VA-04
Hon. Robert Hurt, VA-05
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, VA-06
Hon. Eric Cantor, VA-07
Hon. James P. Moran, VA-08
Hon. Morgan Griffith, VA-09
Hon. Frank Wolf, VA-10
Hon. Gerry Connolly, VA-11

Virgin Islands

Hon. Donna M. Christensen, VI-AL

Washington

Hon. Suzan DelBene, WA-01
Hon. Rick Larsen, WA-02
Hon. Jaime Herrera Beutler, WA-03
Hon. Doc Hastings, WA-04
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, WA-05
Hon. Derek Kilmer, WA-06
Hon. Jim McDermott, WA-07
Hon. David G. Reichert, WA-08
Hon. Adam Smith, WA-09
Hon. Denny Heck, WA-10

West Virginia

Hon. David McKinley, WV-01
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito, WV-02
Hon. Nick J. Rahall, WV-03

Wisconsin

Hon. Paul Ryan, WI-01
Hon. Mark Pocan, WI-02
Hon. Ron J. Kind, WI-03
Hon. Gwen Moore, WI-04
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, WI-05
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, WI-06
Hon. Sean Duffy, WI-07
Hon. Reid Ribble, WI-08

Wyoming

Hon. Cynthia Lummis, WY-AL

Since it is obvious that sequesters are a poor way to control the budget and deficit, Congress has been considering giving the President greater autonomy to prioritize the budget cuts required by law.  The continuing resolution to complete the budget process for the current fiscal year is likely to grant the President the flexibility to manage budget reductions in the Departments of Defense and Veterans’ Affairs.

This is actually quite extraordinary.  The Congress is offering to delegate its authority under the Constitution to appropriate money to the Executive Branch – an unheard of offer, but the Presidency, which has never been shy about pushing the boundaries defining separation of powers, has thus far refused it.  What gives?

Let’s start with a little review.

In August 2011, Republicans and Democrats agreed to reduce the Federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the course of a decade. They empaneled a “Supercommittee” to produce a compromise bill. If, by the end of the year, Congress and the President could not reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, then the Federal discretionary budget would be decreased by that amount in automatic, across-the-board cuts, a process known as “sequestration”. (Such a cut is called a “sequester”.) The sequester was suggested, according to noted journalist Bob Woodward, by the President as a means of enforcing the agreement.  The sequester should have gone into effect on January 1, 2013, which was the same day the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, along with the payroll tax holiday—a confluence of events known as the “fiscal cliff”. Taken individually, either a tax increase or a spending cut is unpleasant for most politicians; taken together, they are a nightmare, even on a good day. To make matters worse, economists predicted that the fiscal cliff would send the economy back into a recession, but deferring it would leave the nation’s long-term economic prospects very dim.

Political leverage determined how these issues would be resolved.  The President had greater political leverage—he had the upper hand—because the Republicans did not want to see tax hikes.  Since all of the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, the only question for Republicans was how much of the tax rate cuts they could persuade the President to allow them to keep.  In the end, they kept about 98 percent of the tax cuts, allowing the tax rates to rise on those earning more than $400,000 per year.  In addition, the President secured additional revenue — for a total of about $600 billion in revenue over the next ten years — by discontinuing the payroll tax holiday and certain tax deductions.

The sequester was also deferred until March 1.  But now the political leverage had shifted because the Democrats did not want to see deep domestic spending cuts.  Since the spending cuts were automatically scheduled to go into effect, the only question was whether the President could entice Congress to substitute tax hikes or alternative cuts for the budgets targeted by the sequester.  This did not happen, mostly because Congress was still smarting from the President’s strong-arm tactics in December, and the sequester went into effect as scheduled.

Now that you’re up to speed—although “speed” is probably not the best term to describe this process—we can delve into the solutions that Congress has proposed to better manage the across-the-board cuts that they and the President had enacted.

Most people on both sides of the political aisle agree that across-the-board cuts are not a very wise way to manage the budget.  Reasonable people would agree that essential programs should be fully funded, and wasteful programs should be eliminated. But this is not a reasonable time in Washington, DC.

To try to bring some sanity to the process, shortly before the end of February, Republican Senators James Inhofe and Pat Toomey introduced a bill that would make the sequester less onerous. Under their proposal, the President would have the authority to prioritize domestic programs, sparing the more important ones, while putting the less consequential on a diet. To protect Republican military constituencies, the plan would hold the President to the budget levels of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013; further, the President could spare military cuts by taking more from non-defense programs, but he could not do the opposite. To top it all off, he could not raise taxes.

Roses bloom in January more frequently than congressional Republicans propose giving a Democratic President greater authority over budget priorities. And it’s equally rare that a Democratic President would decline such an offer. But that is precisely what happened. Additionally, Senate Democrats, especially Majority Leader Harry Reid, supported the President.

The reasons for rejecting the offer are actually not too surprising. Even liberal blogger Ezra Klein was blunt about why Democrats would reject the proposal: The Obama Administration would be responsible for how the cuts are apportioned. In essence, Obama would be picking which constituencies of Americans would be spared from sequestration, which is already a no-win game politically for the White House. And since he couldn’t harm Republican priorities, he would have little leverage in future negotiations over budget cuts.

This was a clever move on the part of Senators Toomey and Inhofe. From a policy perspective, there is some benefit—small, perhaps—to both parties. In offering this plan, the Republicans are essentially saying: We don’t trust you to protect our priorities, but we are confident you can do so for your own. Certainly the President would prefer exclusive authority over domestic spending rather than let the conservative-controlled House have a stab at it.

The idea behind all of this is that, somehow, someone should be able to manage something in the Federal Government.  After all, the President is the Chief Executive of the Federal Government.  Certainly a CEO, or even, for that matter, a head of household, would be able to manage a budget cut of two percent if they had to.

The managerial competence of the Federal Government aside, this proposal and others like it are very interesting precisely because they provide the President with significant authority over the budget process and allocation of monies. Constitutionally, this prerogative belongs to the Congress.  Congress once tried to give the President the authority to use a line-item veto, where he could reject individual parts of appropriation bills. The Supreme Court put the kibosh on this, ruling that the line-item veto was unconstitutional since it ceded too much of the Legislature’s power to the Executive.  If it ever reaches that far up the judiciary, it’s not likely the Supreme Court would show any more tolerance for this latest scheme.

But Congress does not need to wait until a Supreme Court decision.  Some Members of Congress have publicly rejected Toomey and Inhofe’s legislation precisely because it places so much control in the hands of the Executive. Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and John McCain of Arizona have expressed that sentiment. Other Republicans have offered competing plans as well.

The concerns over too much Executive control over appropriations are valid and even grave. Having legislative control over spending is an important safeguard of liberty in our country. Congress must execute its enumerated powers faithfully, which includes directing the way Federal funds are spent. Whether it is genuinely trying to give budget flexibility to ease the budget cuts, or trying to merely avoid the political fallout from furloughs and layoffs, Congress would be playing a dangerous game when its constitutional prerogatives are at stake. Senator Ayotte drove this point home when she said the compromise was a “cop-out”.

Senator Ayotte is right, but her criticisms highlight a particular strength of the Toomey-Inhofe plan. It forces someone to make hard choices, and that’s just the point.  We elect Presidents and Members of Congress to make tough choices.  Too often, when it comes to the budget and spending, leaders have abdicated their responsibilities. Unfortunately, this scenario is no longer tenable, since the country is at an electoral stalemate.

Although Washington has been at a budgetary impasse for several years now, fortunately, Congress and the President have the opportunity to start anew every year.  There is a budget process, prescribed by law that allows the two political branches of our Federal Government to craft a budget outlining the nation’s priorities and determining the levels of revenues, spending and debt.  It has not worked according to plan since 1997, but that is no excuse for it not working in 2013.  The only way out of the “crisis-of-the-month” budget battles is to go to regular order — with the President proposing a budget, the House and Senate passing their budgets as required by law, compromising and making tough decisions, and creating a fiscal blueprint for the government.  After all, isn’t that what the President and Congress were hired to do?

Hope springs eternal.

Mark Strand is the President of the Congressional Institute and Timothy Lang is a research assistant. The Sausage Factory blog is a Congressional Institute project dedicated to explaining parliamentary procedure, Congressional politics, and other issues pertaining to the legislative branch.

The requirement goes back to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and subsequent amendatory laws, which established the Executive budget process and require the President to send Congress a budget proposal for various government agencies and programs by the first Tuesday in February.  The House and Senate, in turn, must review his proposal, approve resolutions of their own, and then come together to pass a concurrent resolution to govern the drafting of appropriations bills.

Somehow Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and even George W. Bush managed to get this right.  What is going on with President Obama?

Although the President is legally required to provide a budget, its absence will not stop the flow of cash to Federal agencies. Realistically, Congress will probably continue to conduct business as they have done—which is not saying much, considering the Federal Budget process has been gummed up for several years now.  The President has submitted his budget late for three years running. Even worse, the last time the Senate produced a budget was 2009. Further, each year the Congress should pass roughly a dozen appropriations bills to fund government programs. However, it now routinely funds the government via “continuing resolutions”, which maintain spending levels or make only slight tweaks. Congress hasn’t passed all the appropriations bills since fiscal year 2002, and even then is needed a number of continuing resolutions to get there. (It also almost succeeded in 2006.) The last time Congress did actually complete the budget and appropriations on time was 1997, the year it balanced the budget.

In our polarized political environment, the parties often use the budget proposals of the other side as electoral cannon fodder.  Parties must win elections, but that doesn’t excuse a failure to act.  Budgets are one of the most important aspects of government – something the Constitution makes very clear.

Budgets are where we answer the questions about how big will the government be, how much power shall it have, how much of your money will it take, what vital programs will be funded.  This is where Congress and the President determine the level of entitlement payments, how strong our defense will be, how we will care for our elderly and the impoverished. It is the most important responsibility the President and the Congress has.  And the budget results of the last few years are pretty discouraging.

Although the overall results of the budget process over the past decade or so have been disheartening, there are some signs of hope that some in Washington are taking it seriously.  Since the Republicans took the House in 2011, the House has passed budgets, offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, in all those years. Unfortunately, the only place they have gone have been 30-second television commercials.

This year, the House proposed that if Congress fails to pass a budget they should not be paid.  “No budget-no pay.”  While this is not actually constitutional—the 27^th Amendment permits a Congress to adjust only the pay of future Congresses, though perhaps they could put their salaries in escrow—it has had the effect of prompting the Senate to finally begin the process of passing a budget.

Congress and the President need to get back to a regular and predictable budget process if it hopes to avoid the never-ending succession of fiscal crises that have plagued our body politic for the last four years.  A good place to start would be by obeying the law.

President Obama, submit your budget.

Mark Strand is the President of the Congressional Institute and Timothy Lang is a research assistant. The Sausage Factory blog is a Congressional Institute project dedicated to explaining parliamentary procedure, Congressional politics, and other issues pertaining to the legislative branch.

The outcome has major constitutional and practical implications.  The most important immediate effect is that over 50 companies have appealed rulings made by the NLRB; since the board members were illegally appointed, the rulings are invalid they argue.

We have written several times on this issue:  The most detailed discussion can be found here.

Recess appointments have been a source of dispute between the Congress and the President.  They are, in the modern era, an attempt to bypass the constitutional requirement of advice and consent on certain Presidential appointments.   The Founders, it appears, provided for recess appointments as a means for providing continuity of government operations during the long recesses of the early Congresses.  But today, Presidents use the recess appointment power to bypass the Senate when the constant use of the filibuster leaves key positions vacant for months and even years.

While one can argue that the President’s frustration with the Senate is real (just as every President before him has also done), it is, as the Court has ruled, not readily apparent that the Constitution permits these appointments.

Most Americans probably do not know about the National Labor Relations Board, and even fewer know about the technicalities of the dispute in question, but it is a good example of why Congress wants to preserve its power.  The Board makes important ruling regarding labor disputes with private sector companies.  Some of these rulings have significant impacts on the lives of workers and the companies that employ them.  Since the NLRB decisions are so important, Congress should keep as close an eye as possible on the panel, which would certainly include senatorial confirmation of its members. Congress should not want, nor would the Constitution permit, the President to be able to make important appointments without the advice and consent of the Congress.

The recess appointments are part of a battle of wills between the two political branches of the Federal Government—but there should not be this competition.  President Obama wants a pro-labor union majority of the NLRB.  Unfortunately for him, there are not 60 Senators who agree with him.  Since the Constitution does not give the President the ability to just ignore the Senate and appoint his board members anyway, he must compromise, and presumably, appoint more acceptable candidates to the NLRB.  And as much as ideologues find the word “compromise” to be a dirty word, the authors of the Constitution deliberately designed the founding document to prevent any one branch from dominating another.

The President will have his day in Court if the Supreme Court accepts his appeal, but the odds are the Court will preserve the balance of powers and sustain the U.S. Court of Appeals decision.

Mark Strand is the President of the Congressional Institute and Timothy Lang is a research assistant. The Sausage Factory blog is a Congressional Institute project dedicated to explaining parliamentary procedure, Congressional politics, and other issues pertaining to the legislative branch.

That is not to say that Chu was angry with the President or so disgruntled with Congress that he skipped the speech on purpose. Chu was selected as this year’s “designated survivor” for the President’s State of the Union speech, a role that has become a tradition, and a duty, that dates back to at least the Cold War. This person is a Cabinet Member selected to miss the State of the Union address (or any other joint session of Congress) and tasked with running the Federal Government should disaster strike the Federal officials gathered at the Capitol.

To be eligible as a designated survivor, the secretary must meet the same Constitutional requirements as the President: be a natural born citizen who is at least 35 years old and has resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years. These are very different than being appointed to the President’s Cabinet, which is briefly mentioned in the Constitution and does not hold any specific requirements.  This may leave some secretaries ineligible to serve as President, and therefore as designated survivor, such as former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez, who emigrated from Cuba as a teenager.

Though it holds roots in Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution, it was the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 that established the order of succession that remains in place today. The law ranks the cabinet successors in the order their department was created.  The State Department was first and the Department of Homeland Security the last. Beyond that the history of designated survivor is somewhat vague. Following World War II, the United States and Russia emerged as the world’s superpowers, with nuclear war seemingly one small conflict away. In order to maintain a working Constitutional government during a national emergency, the idea of “Continuity of Government” was developed to ensure the Federal Government would continue to function in the worst of situations. Historian Michael Beschloss told PBS this plan “became all important during the Cold War, around the Eisenhower period…”

However, the Senate Historical Office lists the earliest public records of a designated survivor in 1984, when Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Samuel R. Pierce Jr. skipped President Reagan’s State of the Union.  It’s hard to believe but Federal officials indeed maintained the confidentiality of this plan, conceived in the 1950s, through roughly 30 years of presidential transitions. Today, the Continuity of Government program falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor, which provides “policy guidance to Executive Branch Departments and Agencies regarding continuity programs.” This program was put into full effect for the first time following the attacks of September 11, and was most recently revised in 2007 during the administration of President George W. Bush.

In today’s world, one would assume that an absent secretary with so much responsibility would be hidden in a remote undisclosed location far away from Washington, DC. The truth is the designated survivor can watch the speech from virtually anywhere – albeit with Secret Service protection and resources at his or her disposal. Meena Ganesan of PBS reported that past designees had stayed in Washington and ordered pizza while others have left the Beltway completely.  The two imperatives are that the designated survivor needs only to be in a discreet location during the State of the Union and be in a position to lead the government should the unthinkable happen.

Even in the first year that a newly elected President delivers a speech to a joint session of Congress (which not considered an official “State of the Union” address), a single Cabinet member is still asked not to attend.  In reality, designated survivor could rank as high as fourth or as low as fifteenth in the chain of succession, despite only a month on the job! However, the lack of time in a new administration is disconcerting, but U.S. Secretaries often bring executive experience from their previous careers: Senate records show that since 1984, three former designated survivors had served as governors of their states, and two later went on to become governors, including current Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo.

That is not to say the selection of a secretary is completely random or arbitrary. Since 1984, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture (ranked eighth and ninth in line of succession, respectively) have both served in this role six times each. The reason why a certain Cabinet member is chosen is not usually disclosed. And though there are many implications of agreeing to this position, it is rare to see a person perform this duty more than once. In fact, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans is the only known Secretary to miss two State of the Union addresses (2004 and 2005).

By skipping this year’s speech, Secretary Chu made history as the first Energy Secretary to serve as designated survivor since the Senate Historical Office began keeping records of the position. He is also the lowest ranking secretary to serve in this position since Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson missed the address in 2006.

None of this talk of a Presidential designated survivor is to say Members of Congress and Senators are expendable. Remember, the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore are second and third in line to the presidency, respectively. According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, Representative John Kline was the House’s designated survivor at this year’s State of the Union, viewing the President’s speech from an off-site location. In the event of a catastrophe, Kline could potentially have assumed the role of Speaker, and became second in the line of succession in a new government.  It should be noted that after 9/11, both the House and Senate developed plans for the continuity of the legislature in the event of a national disaster.

It is likely the designated survivor was thought to be a necessity of the past following the end of the Cold War. But with the threats that the new millennium has presented, this position may be more important than ever.  Having a plan to weather the type of catastrophe that would make the designated survivor President of the United States is necessary to ensure to continuity of a government at a time of unprecedented internal or external threat to the survival of our Constitutional republic. Let us pray to God this exercise in planning will never amount to more than an inconvenience for one Cabinet member who misses out on all the pomp and circumstance that has become the State of the Union address.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle’s book, The U.S. Senate, written with political journalist and congressional aide Charles Robbins, sets out to simplify the country’s Upper Chamber, and it does so—perhaps too well in some places. The book is worth a read, but suffers from a number of important omissions.

The book is written for the general reader but with high school seniors or college freshmen in mind. The writing style fulfills this purpose: The prose is quite simple and the tone is generally positive and inviting. The Senator illustrates concepts with well-chosen anecdotes from his own career. The reader is unlikely to get lost among details of arcane parliamentary maneuvers or policy minutiae.

Another strength of the book is the attention the authors pay to partisanship, which is not a “step” or “stage” in the legislative process, but nonetheless influences it at every turn. The Senator recalls a number of times when comity benefited the nation or Senate and also points out the consequences of refusing to legislate. Even when the majority party has sufficient numbers to pass a bill, they are better off working with the minority to build as wide a consensus as possible.

Although the Senator writes favorably about bipartisanship—which is not something to be taken for granted—every so often, the Republican Party is either treated somewhat unfairly. For instance, he takes a quotation from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat’s Democrat, to define the differences between the parties: “Conservatives, he said, believe that ‘there is no necessity for the government to step in’” and solve “new conditions and problems” (15). This definition is simply inaccurate; it is more appropriate to say that conservatives believe it is not fitting for the government to “step in”. Editorial comments are scattered here and there throughout. Such comments are merely annoying, but what truly detracts from the book’s usefulness is partisan omissions. For instance, in treating leadership, the Senator writes about his service as co-chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and Majority Leader election; however, aside from writing the Republicans have whips and a Policy Committee, no meaningful attention is given to them. (But then again, not much space is given to describing leadership functions, apart from Daschle’s involvement in them.) Such oversights, and the occasional partisan comment, are understandable, but they nonetheless undermine the book’s purpose of informing the general public.

The partisan omissions are part of a larger problem of a lack of detail or misplaced emphasis throughout the book. For instance, in describing how a bill becomes a law, there is practically no discussion of where a Senator might get an idea for an initiative. Or, in a chapter on committee chairmanships—a crucial power station in Congress—only 3 of the 11 paragraphs provide substantive information about chairmen. The first four describe the growth of committees, which should have been treated in the previous chapter on the topic. The last four describe healthcare reform efforts: They provide no substantive information about chairmen and read more like a partial criticism and partial defense of President Obama’s handling of that initiative. Similarly, Daschle declines to cover congressional staff adequately. A 13-paragraph chapter on staff has 6 dedicated to pages, 1 to his own time as a staffer, 1 to his intern that suffered during the 2001 anthrax attacks, and only 5 to professional aides. He notes that some staff wield so much power that they are almost like Senators. Five paragraphs are not sufficient to describe the different kinds of staffers and their roles in Congress. Overall, the content is well chosen, but the reader would be better served with a more detailed account of certain features of Senate life.

The deficiencies with the book are not minor, but also do not render The U.S. Senate worthless. The various anecdotes Senator Daschle offers makes it a useful companion for a high school civics textbook, as a tool to illustrate some concepts that might otherwise be lost on readers. High school sophomores, not seniors, would be the most appropriate audience. A slightly more substantial look at the Chamber might be more appropriate for older students, but this could easily introduce younger high schoolers to the body and might even inspire them to serve the Senate.

The purpose of this study is to help Members of Congress communicate more effectively with their constituents by acting upon lessons learned as a result of the eye-tracking research described in this report. For those not familiar with it, eye tracking is a combined software and hardware application designed to capture the conscious and unconscious eye gaze movements of a respondent.  This technology enables us to know what, when, for how long, and in what order information is absorbed and processed by a study respondent. 

Eye tracking was used to study how constituents view Congressional official online advertising on the web, glossy franked mail, websites, and e-newsletters. Online advertising specifically designed for hand-held devices was not tested because at the time of the study it was not allowed under House Administration rules.

Having a better understanding of how constituents interact with these forms of media will help Members know what is working, what is not working, and what improvements to make in their communications.

Following the key findings, this report concludes with a list of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of official websites, printed mail, and e-newsletters by Members of Congress.

Read the full report here (PDF).

This is the latest of the Congressional Institute’s study on improving communication between Congress and its constituents. Follow these links for our reports on: mastering official online advertising, the effective use of snail mail in the e-mail age, using e-newsletters to reach constituents, harnessing new communications technologies, Congressional Facebook pages, Congressional website and e-newsletter design, Congressional tele-town hall meetings.