The Budget Control Act, I recently discovered, is not dead. But the 1974 law, which forms the basis for Congress’s annual budgetary process, lives on in a barely recognizable new guise. Through “deeming resolutions,” congressional leaders insert budget language into unrelated must-pass measures and deem a budget to have been adopted.
In the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013,” Congress gave the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees statutory authority to insert in the Congressional Record the language and amounts of a budget resolution, which would then be deemed as adopted. The act also authorized the introduction in each house of a “shell” budget resolution — a concurrent resolution with blank amounts after each dollar sign. This could later be used to convey reconciliation instructions to the appropriate committees to report necessary adjustments in revenue and entitlement laws to bring the government’s overall budget in line with the budget resolution.
The existence of this sleight-of-hand budgetary device made me wonder whether there are any other committees in Congress getting away with such shortcuts, circumventing the normal processes of bringing their legislation to the floor.
There is no simple formula for determining that. Each committee has its own rules and norms, and the evidence is largely anecdotal. Sometimes, the most honest assessments come from the minority, regardless of which party controls the majority.
However, one of the surest signs of what’s happening is to look at how many important bills (defined here as those brought under special rules) have not been favorably reported from committee. I rely here on data I have been compiling over three decades on rules that set general debate time on bills and what amendments, if any, can be offered. This gives us some idea as to how things vary from Congress to Congress.
Of the 138 measures with special rules so far in this Congress, as of May 22, 49 (37 percent) make unreported measures in order. That compares to 27 percent in the 109th Congress (2005-06); 25 percent in the 114th Congress (2015-16); and 47 percent of all bills in the previous 117th Congress (2021-22).
Another relevant measure is how many special rules provide for a “structured” amendment process as opposed to “closed” rules that allow for no amendments. In the current 118th Congress, 44 percent of the 138 special rules as of May 22 were structured, and 56 percent were closed. That compares to 44 percent open rules, 47 percent structured rules, and 9 percent closed rules in the 103rd Congress (1993-94); and 58 percent open, 28 percent structured, and 14 percent closed in the 104thCongress (1995-96) — the first Republican House in 40 years. There have been no open amendment rules since the 114th Congress (2015-16).
Looking deeper, in the allocation of amendments by party in special rules, the Republican majority in this Congress has been allowed 57 percent of total amendments, versus 27 percent for Democrats and 16 percent bipartisan. In the 111th Congress (2009-10) under a Democratic majority, Democrats got 59 percent of the amendments, and Republicans 20 percent, and 19 percent were bipartisan.
Beyond these data sets, one gets the visceral impression that both parties are much more belligerent and personal in their committee conduct today than in the last century, defying traditional norms of civility, comity and cooperation. A three-way personal insult fusillade was exchanged last week in the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, erupting into an hour of chaos. It got great play in the media. But who remembers exactly what they were supposed to be debating?
Princeton government professor Woodrow Wilson, in his 1885 book, “Congressional Government,” observed that “Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work.” Today, that maxim has been turned on its head. There seems to be a lot more public exhibitionism occurring in committees by members vying for prime-time television exposure. The more sensational their outbursts, the more likely it is they will get airtime.
Whether this will change at any time in the future depends on whether members will both demand and demonstrate greater institutional responsibility, respectful personal conduct, and a sound commitment to fulfilling the duties for which they were elected — even if it means shunning those colleagues who constantly clamor for greater attention.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran, culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee. He is the author of “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000) and “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018). The views here expressed do not necessarily reflect those of any committee or member of Congress.