Development of the House of Representatives

To expedite its work load, which has heavy(p) in volume and complexity over the years, the home base, in telephone line with the Senate, became " much hierarchically organized" (Congressional Quarterly Guide 409). Its rules were more than rigid, being designed, said Cohen, "to allow the majority to work its go out" (89). This was necessary to control the centrifugal forces which are inevitable in a body with four hundred thirty tailfin members, each of whom is up for reelection every 2 years and who represent local interests in their districts. Many ordinal and early twentieth century Speakers such as summation heat Clay, Thomas A. Reid and Joseph G. Cannon exercised neardictatorial powers which were gradually eroded by successive reform movements. Democratic Speakers in the come outwar era included strong figures like surface-to-air missile Rayburn and Tip O'Neil, but the last Democratic Speaker, Thomas G. Foley, was for the most part known for his "legislative knowledge and consensusbuilding skills" (Cohen 92).

Reforms Under novel Democratic Leadership

During the postWatergate era, some progress had been made in reducing the power of the chairmen of the standing committees, who were generally appointed on the basis of seniority and were often conservative Southerners. This was accomplished mainly by granting staffs and budgets to subcommittees and new(prenominal)wise increasing their autonomy. The once feared Chairman of the House Rules Committee, which sets the terms of debate and con

For a variety of reasons, many of these reforms, which were designed to make the House more responsive to the will of the majority and to make its procedures more pass around and democratic, backfired on the leadership and made the House less(prenominal) controllable. troupe discipline, always tenuous in the House, was weakened by a gradual decline in the power of the two semipolitical parties. This created "a power vacuum in the decision reservation process" and led to the rise of "interest group regime" (Cigler 5). Traditional building blocks of the Democratic coalition such as organized labor and farm groups lacked the clout they once had in national politics. The power of the Congress increased as that of the government activity weakened.

The ascendancy of Congress led to a fractious and fairly rebellious House, and to what George Will described as "the enervation of contradictory policy and, in domestic affairs, the primacy of parochial interests at the expense of national aspirations" (268). Extensive media coverage, including television coverage of floor debates and eventful hearings, may have exaggerated these trends. The representation of previously excluded groups alike increased. The House which emerged from the 1992 elections, "had the largest turnover in membership in youthful years" and contained thirty four new women members (out of a total of forty seven), cardinal new black members (out of thirty eight) and sixteen new Hispanic members (out of seventeen) (103rd Congress Convenes 2 and Cohen 108). These newer groups tended to be less amenable to traditional methods of party control.

5. Other cost preservation measures. These included the abolition of the House Doorkeeper and incorporation of this and other scattered functions under a new House executive who will report to the Speaker. Carney said this move "strikes some observers as a return to patronage" (156). The role of the House tester General, whose staff was increased from three to eleven and who was ordered to condu
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.