Houses Of Congress Research Articles

Strategic Voting on the D.C. Circuit?: A Case Study of Challenges to Health-and-Safety Regulation

The article examines whether the ideological divisions on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are affected by changes in the composition of political branches: the two houses of Congress and the Presidency. Thus, it seeks to empirically test the plausibility of positive political economy models of adjudication, which posit that judges act in an ideologically manner. The data set developed for this study consists of all cases decided by the D.C. Circuit, between 1970 and 1996, challenging the health-and-safety decisions of twenty federal agencies. The empirical analysis undertaken here reveals strong, statistically significant evidence of ideological voting. Most strikingly, challengers seeking more stringent health-and-safety regulation prevailed in 50.3% of the cases before majority-Democratic panels but in only 27.8% of the cases before majority-Republican panels. This difference is significant at a 99% confidence level. There is no statistically significant evidence, however, that these ideological differences are affected by the party controlling the two chambers of Congress or the Presidency. The results can be interpreted in one of two ways. First, they might be seen as supporting the attitudinal model's view that the ideological voting on the D.C. Circuit is sincere, rather than strategic. Second, it is possible that the judges are in fact voting strategically, but that they believe that the possibility of legislative reversal is so small that their interests would not be furthered by departing from sincere ideological voting. Under this account, judges act in what might be termed a super-strategic manner: they pay attention to the possibility that Congress will thwart their ideological interests but at the same time understand that the probability of reversal is small. Either way, the empirical findings have important relevance for the understanding of the administrative state. For example, under either interpretation judicial review of administrative action does not bring administrative preferences closer to the current congressional majorities, as posited in the strategic models.

The 2000 Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost

The presidential election of 2000 stands at best as a paradox, at worst as a scandal, of American democracy. Democrat Albert Gore won the most votes, a half million more than his Republican opponent George W. Bush, but lost the presidency in the electoral college by a count of 271-267. Even this count was suspect, dependent on the tally in Florida, where many minority voters were denied the vote, ballots were confusing, and recounts were mishandled and manipulated. The choice of their leader came not from the citizens of the nation, but from lawyers battling for five weeks. The final decision was made not by 105 million voters, but by a 5-4 majority of the unelected U.S. Supreme Court, issuing a tainted and partisan verdict. That decision ended the presidential contest, and George W. Bush now heads the conservative restoration to power, buttressed by thin party control of both houses of Congress. The election of 2000, however, will not fade. It encapsulates the political forces shaping the United States at the end of the twentieth century. Its controversial results will affect the nation for many years of the new era.

Southerners Against Secession: The Arguments of the Constitutional Unionists in 1850–51

The United States obtained vast western territories through the peace treaty with Mexico in 1848, but that acquisition gave rise to controversy between Southern and Northern politicians. Southerners demanded the privilege of taking slavery into the new territories if the environment permitted profitable undertakings; Northerners wanted slavery absolutely and explicitly excluded from them. The issue had been broached in 1846 by David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, but it only achieved a settlement in September 1850 when the various parts of the Compromise of 1850 passed both houses of Congress. After the congressional settlement came electoral confirmation that this compromise was indeed acceptable. In the North, the 1850 congressional elections produced Democratic victories in favor of the compromise measures, which were later massively reaffirmed in the presidential election of 1852. The Southern response to the Compromise was different. Upper South states (Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and to some degree North Carolina) readily accepted the measures adopted by Congress, but in the lower South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi the Compromise precipitated a major debate about secession. In state conventions in late 1850 and in the congressional and gubernatorial elections of 1851, the cooperationists of the South--those who accepted the Compromise of 1850--dramatically triumphed. At least for a few years, the sectional issue of slavery in the territories slumbered.

The Puzzling Decline in House Support for Free Trade: Was Fast Track a Referendum on NAFTA?

In 1993, both houses of Congress passed and President Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Just four years later, fast-track legislation stalled short of a vote in the House of Representatives, despite the endorsement of the president and majority-party leaders. Using interest group head counts in lieu of roll-call data, I test the theory that fast track was a referendum on the district-level economic impact of NAFTA. The findings show that economic and political aftershocks from NAFTA, including trade-related job losses in many members' districts, helped to undermine House support for fast track in 1997.

Concurrent Elections, Discordant Results: Presidentialism, Federalism, and Governance in Brazil

Stumping for candidates is a thing of the past, it's a figure of speech. These days, if you advertise that you're going to vote for this or that candidate, it doesn't change anything. So Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso expressed his belief that his support would not help elect candidates for other offices in O Estado de Sao Paulo, August 3, 1998. In January 1999 Cardoso became the first Brazilian president to pass the presidential sash to himself. He won a smashing first-round reelection victory in October 1998, defeating his nearest rival by over 20 percent. The parties in his alliance also won sizable majorities in both houses of congress. By all rights, Cardoso's reelection ought to have rejuvenated his efforts to maintain Brazil's economic stabilization program (the Piano Real) and to pass extensive political reforms. On top of the prestige from his relatively easy victory, the International Monetary Fund agreed soon after the election to provide with U.S.$42 billion to give Cardoso extra political and economic breathing room to maneuver for reform. Superficially, Cardoso appeared to possess significant political capital at the start of his second term. However, Cardoso experienced no second honeymoon. To the contrary, his second term began as a nightmare. Within weeks of his inauguration, the real collapsed, losing half its value and raising fears of a return to Brazil's infamous days of hyperinflation; the country's foreign currency reserves were drained; two central bank presidents resigned in succession; the Brazilian stock markets went into a free-fall; and former president Itamar Franco, elected governor of the important state of Minas Gerais, effectively defaulted on the debts his state owed to domestic and international creditors. This last straw forced the central government to cover the debts in order to stave off the perception of a generalized government default. The New York Times soon concluded that despite Cardoso's victory Brazil is struggling against its worst financial crisis in years.' Moreover, as the largest economy in Latin America and the eighth largest in the world, Brazil's troubles reverberated throughout the region. Leery investors feared that Brazil's problems could unleash new turmoil or even precipitate a global financial meltdown.2 Brazil's economic crisis generated a political crisis, and after his inauguration Cardoso's political prestige quickly slipped with both voters and congress.3 Why was Cardoso's second honeymoon cut short so abruptly? While many fac-

Environmental Threats to Children's Health: A Challenge for Pediatrics: 2000 Ambulatory Pediatric Association (APA) Presidential Address

Public health accomplishments have dramatically improved children's lives. Sanitation programs, vaccines, better nutrition, surveillance and monitoring of disease, and the development of antibiotics have led to extraordinary reductions in infant and child mortality.1 Ambulatory pediatricians have contributed, through research, teaching, and advocacy, and especially through the delivery of improved medical care to this dramatic trend. Despite these advances, children are in trouble:

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: "An Appeal to the Real Laws of Our Country"

IN 1798, AFTER A DECADE OF POLITICAL DEFEATS, VIRGINIA REPUBLICANS faced gravest scenario contemplated in their ideology: federal government, no longer headed by a Virginian Cincinnatus who had proven himself willing to relinquish power, stood on a war footing. Despite what Republicans understood as nation's moral obligation, Federalists finally had taken sides in European wars in opposition to republican France. This decision had led them also to expand American army and augment American navy. In addition, as Republican thought predicted. Federalists had taken drastic measures aimed at tamping down domestic dissent. With passage of Alien and Sedition Acts, it seemed that Federalist majority in Congress might guarantee itself a permanent domination. The Sedition Act prohibited all criticism of the government of United States, or either house of Congress ... or (but did not specifically exempt from criticism vice president--who, of course, was Thomas Jefferson), while Alien Friends Act subjected friendly foreigners--including Representative Albert Gallatin, a leading Republican--to government's arbitrary control. President John Adams, Jefferson's onetime revolutionary colleague, seemed a happy convert to cause of monarchism. Jefferson, recognized leader of Republican opposition, decided to forgo candid expression of his sentiments even in letters to bosom friends lest Federalist postmasters, whom he suspected of rifling through his mail, expose him to prosecution. At end of their collective rope (or at least imagining a gallows in intermediate future) Republican high command lit upon a strategy: it would have Virginia General Assembly and legislature of a sympathetic state (Jefferson thought it should be North Carolina's, but influence of members of Nicholas family--which included prominent Kentucky and Virginia Republicans--in Kentucky meant that its legislature served purpose in end) adopt a statement of Republican constitutional principles. Americans at large would thus be offered an alternative political standard to which they could repair, and Federalist government would receive a tacit dare to initiate sedition prosecutions against an unsympathetic state legislature.(1) The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 should not be understood as invention of distraught minds faced with extraordinary circumstances. Although situation faced by Virginia Republican leaders at end of 1790s was urgent, twin enunciations of their constitutional position adopted by Virginia and Kentucky legislatures corresponded closely to explication of Constitution offered by Federalists in Richmond Ratification Convention of 1788. By time matters came to a head in 1798, Virginians had been insisting on holding Federalists to their vows of 1788 for a full decade. From almost minute they were promulgated, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 came to be seen as touchstone of Virginia's constitutionalism. When identities of their main authors, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, became known more than a decade after fact, resolutions took on additional luster, and sectionalist and particularist southerners based their arguments on them up to 1861 and after.(2) The standard accounts of events of 1798 have Jefferson and Madison teaming to concoct a constitutional doctrine that might be useful in defense of civil liberties. According to these accounts, two eminent Virginians directed their salvo against what was seemingly an endless string of Federalist victories in federal politics--what Jefferson called the reign of witches--that finally drove many Republicans to desperation.(3) Examined solely from perspective of Virginia, however, that standard account is simply mistaken. …

Television Violence and You

Television Violence and You

The Law: The Clinton Theory of the War Power

President Bill Clinton frequently has engaged in unilateral acts of executive war making in defiance of the war clause of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the exclusive authority to initiate hostilities on behalf of the American people. Recently, Clinton ordered in concert with NATO allies a massive air and missile assault against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an attack that ranks as the most intensive and sustained military campaign conducted by the United States since the Vietnam War. This article analyses the administration's legal and constitutional justifications, and concludes that Clinton's action violates the fundamental requirement of the war clause—authorization of hostilities by both houses of Congress. Clinton's “presidential war” against Yugoslavia marks the first time in our history that a president has waged war in the face of a direct congressional refusal to authority the war. The war clause, it appears, has become a dead letter.

The Law: The Clinton Theory of the War Power

President Bill Clinton frequently has engaged in unilateral acts of executive war making in defiance of the war clause of the Constitution, which vests in Congress the exclusive authority to initiate hostilities on behalf of the American people. Recently, Clinton ordered in concert with NATO allies a massive air and missile assault against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, an attack that ranks as the most intensive and sustained military campaign conducted by the United States since the Vietnam War. This article analyses the administration's legal and constitutional justifications, and concludes that Clinton's action violates the fundamental requirement of the war clause—authorization of hostilities by both houses of Congress. Clinton's “presidential war” against Yugoslavia marks the first time in our history that a president has waged war in the face of a direct congressional refusal to authority the war. The war clause, it appears, has become a dead letter.

Republican Gainsinthe Houseinthe 1994 Elections: Class Polarization in American Politics

In November 1994, the American political landscape shifted in historic fashion.1 Voters gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, breaking the Democrats' forty-year hold on the House of Representatives. Divided government once again reigned. The partisan shift in congressional control structured America's political debate, which since then has largely been an ongoing struggle between the Republican-held Congress and the Democratic president. The policy differences have been significant, as illustrated by the passage of a conservative welfare reform bill and the fierce battles between the 104th Congress and the president over government spending and tax cuts. Given this dramatic shift of congressional control and its impact on American politics, scholars have devoted considerable attention to explaining what happened in the 1994 elections and what separated that election from those that preceded it. While many insightful explanations of the 1994 elections have been offered, we argue that they only address parts of the puzzle and have missed the important element that connects those pieces. What has been missed

Changes in the works for U.S. patent practice

Stalled in Congress for more than four years, major patent reform legislation was finally given the nod by both houses of Congress, making its way into the consolidated spending package in the final hours of this year's session. On its way to the President's desk, the American Inventor Protection Act went through numerous transformations, and many of its rough edges were worn away by grueling, protracted, and sometimes rancorous debate. Among other things, the new law will provide for a defense against charges of infringement by prior users of a patented business method, change the administrative structure of the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), reduce patent fees while raising trademark fees, require U.S. publication of patent applications filed abroad, and permit extension of the expiration date of a patent under certain circumstances. This legislation represents the most important and most comprehensive reforms to our nation's patent system in nearly half a century, says Sen. Orrin ...

The Law: Legal Disputes in the Clinton Years

The first six years of the Clinton administration were packed with legal controversies, ranging from presidential immunity (the Paula Jones case) to the item veto. When the Jones case widened to include Monica Lewinsky, the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr led to repeated litigation and a narrowing of the concept of executive privilege. President Clinton's use of an executive order to carry out presidential power in the absence of congressional action was struck down in the courts. Although many of these disputes were resolved by the Supreme Court and lower courts, some were worked out between theWhite House and Congress, and still others await further judicial and legislative action.

Cherny, American Politics In The Gilded Age, 1868-1900

Robert Cherny, a member of the Department of History at San Francisco State University, has written a comprehensive overview of American politics from the immediate post-Civil War period to the Progressive Era. In a lively prose style, he reviews major political happenings and suggests ways to interpret this spirited period. Cherny contends that American voters principally responded to issues of ethnicity, religion, and race. At times a strong sense of class identity influenced behavior at the polls. Generally, Republicans represented a more homogeneous coalition of voters, who embraced Protestantism, promoted moral values, and endorsed a positive expectation that government could accomplish a limited number of social and economic goals. Democrats, on the other hand, showed greater religious heterogeneity, represented by Roman Catholics in the North and old-stock Protestants in the South, but they shared common opposition to the strong use of government. As Cherny suggests, Democrats were part of the "personal liberty party," carrying on the tradition of the Jeffersonian-Jacksonians. Moreover, there existed considerable popular interest in politics, resulting at times in fierce competition between the two major parties. Any effort to enact a national party agenda was doomed, given the need to win approval from two houses of Congress and the White House. After all, it was unusual for either Democrats or Republicans to dominate this all-powerful political trinity. And Cherny cogently argues that political assumptions, strategies, and events of the Gilded Age helped to establish the essential foundation for twentieth-century politics.

Restraining Congressional Impulse to Federalize More Local Crime Laws

March 2, 1999 Mr. President, every Congress in which I have served ? I have served here since 1975?has focused significant attention on crime legislation. It doesn't make any dif ference which party controls the White House or either House of Congress, the opportunity to make our mark on the criminal law has been irresistible. In fact, more than a quarter of all the Federal criminal provisions enacted since the Civil War?a quarter of all Federal criminal provisions since the Civil War?have been enacted in the 16 years since 1980, more than 40 per cent of those laws have been created since 1970. In fact, at this point the total number is too high to count. Last month, a task force headed by former Attor ney General Edwin Meese and organized by the Ameri can Bar Association released a comprehensive report. The best the task force could do was estimate the Fed eral crimes to be over 3,300. Even that doesn't count the nearly 10,000 Federal regulations authorized by Con gress that carry some sort of sanction. I have become increasingly concerned about the seemingly uncontrollable impulse to react to the latest headline-grabbing criminal caper with a new Federal prohibition. I have to admit, I supported some of the initiatives. Usually, the expansion of Federal authority by the creation of a new Federal crime is only incre mental. Some crime proposals, however, are more sweeping, and they invite Federal enforcement author ity into entirely new areas traditionally handled by State and local law enforcement.

The Revolutionary Communist Party and Flag Burning During Its Forgotten Years, 1974–1989

Origins of the Controversy Since 1989, the American political scene has been convulsed by repeated controversies concerning whether or not “desecrating” the American flag (generally defined as burning or otherwise physically damaging it) should be a criminal offense. The immediate background to these controversies is the 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson (subsequently reaffirmed and broadened by the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in U.S. v. Eichman), which held that physical flag desecration for the purpose of expressing a political viewpoint is protected under the First Amendment. Ever since these rulings, an organized movement led by the American Legion has sought to amend the Constitution to overrule the Supreme Court and authorize the outlawing of flag desecration. The proposed constitutional amendment was defeated in 1989 and again in 1990 (it received majority backing in both houses of Congress, but not the required two-thirds support required for an amendment). Subsequently it was revived and passed the House by well over the needed two-thirds vote in 1995 and 1997; the proposal failed by three votes in the Senate in 1995 and was never voted on in the Senate before the 105th Congress adjourned, due to crush of other legislative business in late 1998 and especially due to the eclipsing of virtually all other issues in that year by the Monica Lewinsky affair. Amendment backers reintroduced the proposal in early 1999, and as of mid-June were expected to succeed easily once more in the House and were within two votes of victory in the Senate. Since 49 state legislatures have already petitioned Congress to endorse a flag desecration amendment, should Congress pass such an amendment it would almost certainly be ratified by the required three-fourths (38) of the 50 state legislatures and become the firstever change in the First Amendment. The distant origins of the flag desecration controversy date back to the turn of the century, when, in response to pressure from union veterans’ organizations such as the Grand Army of the Republic and hereditary-patriotic organizations such as the Daughters of the American Revolution, the states began to outlaw flag desecration in response to their complaints that advertising, commercial, or otherwise unorthodox use of flags and flag imagery was demeaning the national symbol. Thus, an 1895 pamphlet issued by the proponents of the early movement to ban flag desecration

House releases major science policy report

A special House Science Committee report— Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy—on rethinking the goals and foundations of national science policy was released last week a resounding affirmation of the U.S.'s basic research enterprise. The study's chairman was Rep. Vernon D. Ehlers (R-Mich.), a Ph.D. physicist who now joins the parade of politicians who have produced several such ambitious studies in Congress in the past. Ehlers says the big difference between this study and the others is that he will seek approval for his report from both houses of Congress. Ehlers says the report should be seen as a first step in a continuing process. It urges the scientific community to reconnect with the American people . . . before any erosion sets in, by solidifying a long-term, compelling rationale for science. The report, which breaks no new conceptual ground, puts forth several reassertions: • Basic research is a long-term economic ...

Searching for Government Performance: The Government Performance and Results Act

If there is a single theme that characterizes the public sector in the 1990s, it is the demand for performance. A mantra has emerged in this decade, heard at all levels of government, that calls for documentation of performance and explicit outcomes of government action. While this demand has emerged from governors' offices, state legislatures, and city and country governments, perhaps no activity better embodies this request than the federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the legislation that has structured expectations for performance-based management in the federal government (see Radin 1998).The law that was enacted in August 1993 had its origins in legislation introduced by Republican Senator William Roth in 1990. Until Clinton's election in 1992, the legislation remained in the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. However, with the blessing of the Democratic White House, the legislation sailed through both houses of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. Despite the breadth of support, there was very little real debate over its provisions, and the legislation that was enacted was framed in very general and often abstract terms. The final bill contained little more than the good government rhetoric familiar to students of public administration. The appropriations and authorizing committees, believed to be major users of the information generated by the law, gave little—if any—attention to the requirements.

Searching for Government Performance: The Government Performance and Results Act

If there is a single theme that characterizes the public sector in the 1990s, it is the demand for performance. A mantra has emerged in this decade, heard at all levels of government, that calls for documentation of performance and explicit outcomes of government action. While this demand has emerged from governors' offices, state legislatures, and city and country governments, perhaps no activity better embodies this request than the federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the legislation that has structured expectations for performance-based management in the federal government (see Radin 1998).The law that was enacted in August 1993 had its origins in legislation introduced by Republican Senator William Roth in 1990. Until Clinton's election in 1992, the legislation remained in the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. However, with the blessing of the Democratic White House, the legislation sailed through both houses of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. Despite the breadth of support, there was very little real debate over its provisions, and the legislation that was enacted was framed in very general and often abstract terms. The final bill contained little more than the good government rhetoric familiar to students of public administration. The appropriations and authorizing committees, believed to be major users of the information generated by the law, gave little—if any—attention to the requirements.

Congressional Research Service Enviromental Reports Online: A Service of the National Library for the Environment

The most recent news about the NIE. Copyright Information: All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more at http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse Congressional Research Service Environmental Reports Online: A Service of the National Library for the Environment Frederick W. Stoss SUNY University at Buffalo Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports provide a major link between the scientific and public policy aspects of critical environmental issues. The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment provides free, full-text, online access to the CRS reports dealing with environmental quality, natural resources, and general environmental issues. The Committee for National Institute for the Environment (CNIE) http://www.cnie.org/ began providing, for the first time ever, free online full-text access to technical reports produced by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 1996. The CRS reports were provided from the CNIE's National Library for the Environment (NLE) Web site http://www.cnie.org/nle/. It was the desire by CNIE to identify a unique, major environmental information resource that was not readily available to the environmental research and policy communities (nor the public atlarge), and provide free, direct access to that resource. Making these CRS environmental reports freely available was the first information component provided through the newly created NLE Web site, and serves as an example of the type of information resource that can be provided by this proposed library gateway. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research program of the Library of Congress. CRS provides comprehensive and reliable analysis, research, and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential. CRS was created by an Act of Congress in 1914 as the Legislative Reference Service. It was renamed by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, which expanded CRS's mandate to serve the needs of both Houses of Congress, especially service to its committees. CRS works exclusively and directly for all Members and committees of the Congress. Today CRS provides a full range of analytical and evaluative research and information services to both Members and committees of Congress. CRS reports and documents undergo review for accuracy and objectivity Stoss: Congressional Research Service Enviromental Reports Online: A Service of the Nation...