Encyclopedia of the united States

congress

Encyclopedia of the united States

congress

Robert E. Dewhirst

John David Rausch, Jr., Associate Editor

Encyclopedia of the United States Congress

Copyright © 2007 by Robert E. Dewhirst

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form orby any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any

information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information contact:

Facts On File, Inc.An imprint of Infobase Publishing

132 West 31st StreetNew York NY 10001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Dewhirst, Robert E.Encyclopedia of the United States Congress / by Robert E. Dewhirst;

John David Rausch, Jr., associate editor.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-8160-5058-9 (hc : alk. paper)

1. United States. Congress—Encyclopedias. I. Rausch, John David. II. Title.JK1021.D48 2006

328.73003—dc22 2005028124

Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulkquantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call our

Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755.

You can find Facts On File on the World Wide Web at http://www.factsonfile.com

Text design by Joan McEvoyCover design by Cathy RinconIllustrations by Dale Williams

Printed in the United States of America

VB Hermitage 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

LIST OF ENTRIES vii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xi

INTRODUCTION xiii

ENTRIES A–Z 1

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 551

INDEX 553

Contents�

vii

AAbscamadjournmentadjournment and recess

(House ofRepresentatives)

adjournment and recess(Senate)

advice and consentagendaAging, Senate Special

Committee onAgriculture, House

Committee onAgriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry, SenateCommittee on

Albert, Carl BertAldrich, Nelson W.amendingAnthony Ruleappealappointment powerapportionment and redis-

trictingAppropriations, House

Committee onAppropriations, Senate

Committee onappropriations billsArchitect of the CapitolArmed Services, Senate

Committee onArmed Services

Committee, Houseauthorization bills

Bbackdoor spendingBaker, Howard H.Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186Baldwin, Raymond E.Bankhead, William B.Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs, SenateCommittee on

Barenblatt v. United States360 U.S. 109

bargainingBarkley, Alben Williambells, legislativeBenton, Thomas HartBeveridge, Albert JeremiahbicameralismbillsBipartisan Campaign

Reform Act of 2002Blaine, James G.blocs and coalitionsBlue Dog Democratsblue ribbon commissionsblue-slip procedureBoehner, John A.Boland amendmentsBolling, Richard WalkerBorah, William E.Bork, Robert, Supreme

Court nomination ofBuckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1Budget and Accounting Act

of 1921Budget Committee, House

and Senate

Budget Enforcement Act of1990

Budget and ImpoundmentControl Act of 1974

budget processBudget Reconciliation Actbudget termsByrd, Robert C.

CcalendarCalendar Wednesdaycampaign committeesCannon, Joseph G.Capitol buildingCapitol Hillcareers, congressionalCarlisle, John GriffinCarswell, G. Harold,

nominee to the U.S.Supreme Court

Case Act of 1972caseworkcaucus, partycaucuses, or congressional

member organizationscensuschaplainschecks and balancesChinagatecircular lettersCity of Boerne v. Flores 521

U.S. 507Civil Rights Act of 1964Clark, James Beauchamp

Champ

Clay, HenryClean Air ActsClean Water ActsClerk of the Housecloakroomsclotureclubscoattail effectColfax, Schuylercomitycommerce powerCommerce, Science, and

Transportation, SenateCommittee on

committee assignments(House and Senate)

Committee of the Wholecommittees: jointcommittees: jurisdictioncommittees: leadershipcommittees: reportscommittees: select or

specialcommittees: standingCommon Causeconcurrent powersconference committeesconfirmationCongressional Budget and

Impoundment ControlAct of 1974

Congressional BudgetOffice

Congressional Directorycongressional elections:

financing

List of Entries�

viii List of Entries

congressional elections:incumbency

congressional elections:media

congressional elections:midterm

congressional elections:open seats

congressional elections:pivotal nineteenth-centu-ry contests

congressional elections:primaries

congressional elections:special elections

congressional intelligenceoversight

Congressional QuarterlyCongressional RecordCongressional Research

Service Conkling, Roscoeconservative coalitioncontempt of Congresscontinuing resolutionsContract with AmericaCook v. Gralike et al. 531

U.S. 510Court-packing fightcourts and CongressCredit Mobilier scandalCrockett v. Reagan 720F

2d 1355, 1356 (DC, Cir1983)

C-SPANcustoms and mores of

Congress

DDaschle, Thomasdebate and oratorydebt limitDeLay, TomdelegateDemocratic Steering

Committee, HouseDemocratic Study GroupDepartment of Commerce

v. United States House ofRepresentatives 525 U.S.316

Department of HomelandSecurity Act

dilatory motionDirksen, Everettdischarge of committeesdischarge rulesdiscipline of membersDistrict of Columbiadistrictsdivided governmentDole, Robert J.Doorkeeper of the Housedrafting

EEconomic Committee,

JointEducation and the

Workforce, Committeeon

E-Government Act of 2002Electoral Collegee-mail and Congressemergency powersenacting clauseEnergy and Commerce,

Committee onEnergy and Natural

Resources, SenateCommittee on

engrossed billenrolled billentitlementsenumerated powersEnvironment and Public

Works, SenateCommittee on

Equal Rights AmendmentEx Parte McCardle, 74 U.S.

506executive agreementsexecutive branch and

Congressexecutive sessionexpedited considerationextension of remarks

FFarm BlocFederal Election Campaign

Act of 1971Federalist PapersfilibusterFinance, Senate

Committee on

financial disclosureFinancial Services, House

Committee onfiscal yearfloor leader, Senatefloor managerFoley, Thomas S.Foreign Relations, Senate

Committee onforeign travelfranking privilegefreshmenFrist, William H.

Ggag rulegalleriesGarner, John NanceGephardt, Richard A.germanenessgerrymandering, partisangerrymandering, racialGibbon’s v. Ogden 22 U.S.

(9 Wheat)Gillett, Frederick H.Gingrich, NewtGovernment Accountability

Office Governmental Affairs,

Senate Committee onGovernment Printing

Office Government Reform,

House Committee onGramm-Rudman-Hollings

Bills (1985 and 1987)grandfatheringgrants-in-aidGravel v. U.S., 408 U.S. 606Gypsy Moths

HHammer v. Dagenhart, 247

U.S. 251Hastert, J. DennisHastings, Alcee LamarHayden, Carl TrumbullHaynsworth, Clement F.,

nomination to the U.S.Supreme Court

Health, Education, Labor,and Pensions, SenateCommittee on

hearingsHeart of Atlanta Motel, Inc.

v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 andKatzenbach v. McClung,379 U.S. 294

holdsHouse Administration,

Committee onHouse bank and post office

scandalsHouse of RepresentativesHouse rules and manualHumphrey, HubertHutchinson v. Proxmire,

443 U.S. 111

IImmigration and

Naturalization Service v.Chadha 462 U.S. 919

immunity, congressionalimpeachment of President

Andrew Johnsonimpeachment of President

Bill Clintonimpeachment of President

Richard Nixonimpeachment powers and

processimplied powersimpoundment of fundsIndian Affairs, Senate

Committee onInternational Relations,

House Committee onInternet and CongressinvestigationsInvestigations, Senate

PermanentSubcommittee on

Iran-contra scandal investi-gation

iron trianglesIrreconcilables, the

JJefferson’s ManualJeffords, JamesJohnson, Hiram WarrenJohnson, Lyndon BainesJoint Committee on

Reconstructionjoint session

List of Entries ix

journalistsjournalsJudiciary Committee,

HouseJudiciary Committee,

Senatejurisdiction

K“Keating Five” scandalKefauver, EstesKennedy, EdwardKern, John WorthKerr, Robert S.Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103

U.S. 168killer amendments

L“lame duck”leadership, House of

Representativesleadership, SenateLegal Counsel, Office of

SenateLegislative Counsel Officelegislative daylegislative processLegislative Reorganization

Act of 1946Legislative Reorganization

Act of 1970Legislative Service

Organizations legislative vetolibraries of the House and

SenateLibrary, Joint Committee

on theLibrary of CongressLivingston, Robert (Bob) L.lobbyinglocalismLodge, Henry CabotlogrollingLongworth, Nicholas, IIILott, Trent

Mmace, HouseMajority Leader, HouseMajority Leader, SenateManhattan Project

Marbury v. Madison 1Cranch (5 U.S.) 137

marking up billsmavericksMcCarthy, Joseph R.McCarthy-army hearingsMcConnell v. Federal

Election Commission,540 U.S. 93

McCormack, John W.McCulloch v. Maryland 17

U.S. 316McNary, Charles Linzamedia galleriesmembership: African-

American womenmembership: African

Americansmembership: Asian

Americansmembership: Hispanic

Americansmembership: Native

Americansmembership: womenMerchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee,House

Michel, Robert HenryMills, Wilbur DaigMinority Leader, HouseMinority Leader, SenateMitchell, Georgemorning hourMorris, Robertmotions, Senatemotion to reconsider

(House)motion to reconsider

(Senate)motion to table

NNarcotics Abuse and

Control, House SelectCommittee on

National Labor RelationsBoard (NLRB) v. Jones &Laughlin Steel Corp. 301U.S. 1

Natural Resources, HouseCommittee on

neutrality debates

New Dealnews media and Congressnullification

Ooath of officeobjectorsOffice of Technology

Assessmentoffices, Capitol Hilloffices, districtomnibus billsO’Neill, Thomas P. (“Tip”)

Jr.one-minute speechesOrganization of Congress,

Joint Committee on the

Ppagespairingparliamentarianparty votingpatronagepay and perquisitesPelosi, NancyPersian Gulf War of 1991petitions and memorialspoint of orderpolitical action committees Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan

and Trust Corporation157 U.S. (1895)

Populists in Congresspork barrelPost Office and Civil

Service Committee,House

Powell v. McCormack395 U.S. 486 (1969)(298)

POW/MIA (prisoners ofwar–missing in action)Affairs, Senate SelectCommittee on

presidential appointmentsprevious questionPrinting Joint Committee

onprivate billprivilegeProgressive Era and

Congress

public approval of Congresspublic lawpublic workspurse, power of the

Qqualifications of

membershipquorumquorum call

RRandolph, John B. CawsonsRankin, JeannetteRayburn, Samuel Taliaferoreadings of billsrecess appointmentsrecognitionrecommittalreconciliationrecords of CongressReed, Thomas“Reed’s Rules”referralsreorganization of CongressrepresentationRepublican Steering

Committee, Houserescissionresolutions, concurrentresolutions, jointresolutions, simpleResources Committee,

Houseriderrights of witnessesRobinson, Joseph TaylorRules, House Committee

onRules and Administration,

Senate Committee onrules and procedures,

Houserules and procedures,

Senaterules for House and Senate

debateRussell, Richard B.

Ssavings-and-loan crisisScience, House Committee

on

x List of Entries

seating disputes/contestedelections

Secretary of the SenateSeminole Tribe of Florida v.

Florida 517 U.S. 44SenateSenate Manualsenatorial courtesyseniority systemsequestrationSergeant-at-ArmsSeventeenth Amendmentshadow senatorsShaw v. Reno, 509 U.S.

630Sherman, JohnShreveport Rate CaseSmall Business and

Entrepreneurship,Senate Committee on

Small Business Committee,House

Social Security ActSouth Dakota v. Dole 483

U.S. 203southern blocSpeaker of the Housespecial order addressesspecial rules, HouseSpeech or Debate Clausesponsorship/cosponsorshipstaff, committee/subcom-

mittee

staff, personalStandards of Official

Conduct, HouseCommittee, on

state delegationsState of the Union

messagestatuteSteward Machine Co. v.

Davis 301 U.S. 548subcommitteessubpoena powersunset lawssunshine rulessuspension of the rulesSwift & Co. v. United

States 196 U.S. 518

TtablingTaft, Robert A.term limitationsterms and sessions of

CongressThomas, Clarence, U.S.

Supreme Court nomina-tion of

Thurmond, StromTonkin Gulf ResolutionTransportation and

Infrastructure, HouseCommittee on

treaties

“Tuesday through ThursdayClub”

Twentieth AmendmentTwenty-seventh

Amendment

UUn-American Activities

Committee, Houseunanimous consentunanimous consent agree-

mentUnited States Association

of Former Members ofCongress

United States v. DarbyLumber Co. 312 U.S. 100

United States v. E. C.Knight Co. 156 U.S. 1(1895) (202)

United States v. Eichman496 U.S. 310

United States v. Harris 106U.S. 629

United States v. Lopez 514U.S. 549

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton514 U.S. 779 (347)

VvacancyVeterans’ Affairs, House

Committee on

Veterans’ Affairs, SenateCommittee on

veto, presidentialvice president of the United

Statesvote ratings by interest

groupsvoting in CongressVoting Rights Act of 1965

WWagner ActWalter L. Nixon v. U.S. 506

U.S. 224war powersWar Powers Resolution of

1973Watergate CommitteeWatergate scandalWays and Means, House

Committee onWebster, DanielWesberry v. Sanders 376

U.S. 1whipsWhitewater investigationWickard v. Filburn 317

U.S. 111Wright, James Claude, Jr.

Y“Yellow Dog” Democratsyielding

xi

Ahuja, Sunil Youngstown State UniversityAllen, Carmen R. Eastern Illinois UniversityAichinger, Karen Natchitoches, LouisianaAlam, Mohammed Badrul Miyazaki International College,

Japan

Baker, William D. Arkansas School for Mathematics,Sciences, and the Arts

Baldino, Thomas J. Wilkes UniversityBass, Jeffrey D. University of ConnecticutBehlar, Patricia A. Pittsburgh State UniversityBell, Lauren Cohen Randolph-Macon CollegeBell, Walter F. Lamar UniversityBobic, Mike Emmanuel CollegeBow, Shannon L. University of FloridaBriley, Ron Sandia Preparatory SchoolBrooker, Russell G. Alverno CollegeBrownell, Roy E, II United States Agency for International

Development

Cammisa, Anne Marie Suffolk UniversityCampbell, Colton C. Florida International UniversityClapper, Tomas Oklahoma City, OklahomaCobane, Craig T. Culver-Stockton CollegeConnor, George E. Missouri State UniversityCulver, William State University of New York, PlattsburgCurry, Brett The Ohio State University

Dewhirst, Robert E. Northwest Missouri State UniversityDitslear, Corey University of North Texas

English, Ross M. University of Reading, United Kingdom

Farrier, Jasmine L. University of LouisvilleFisher, Patrick Seton Hall UniversityFrisch, Scott A. California State University, Bakersfield

Gilmour, Terry Midland CollegeGlassman, Matthew Yale UniversityGlenn, Brian J. Harvard UniversityGrose, Christian Lawrence UniversityGalderisi, Peter F. Utah State UniversityGoss, Robert P. Brigham Young University

Harris, Douglas B. Loyola College of MarylandHate, Vibhuti Lawrence UniversityHoff, Samuel B. Delaware State UniversityHoffman, Donna R. University of Northern IowaHolst, Arthur Governmental Affairs Manager, Philadelphia

Water DepartmentHolman, Craig Legislative representative

Jones, David R. Baruch College, City University of NewYork

Kedrowski, Karen M. Winthrop UniversityKelly, Sean California State University, BakersfieldKemper, Mark Bridgewater State CollegeKleeman, Kathy Rutgers UniversityKratz, Jessica Washington, D.C.Kraus, Jeffrey Wagner CollegeKrutz, Glen S. University of OklahomaKubik, William Hanover College

Langran, Robert W. Villanova UniversityLeBeau, Justin Undergraduate Research Center, University

of OklahomaLind, Nancy S. Illinois State UniversityLowrey, Phil West Texas A&M UniversityLyons, Michael Utah State University

Maslin-Wicks, Kimberly Hendrix CollegeMcCurdy, Karen M. Georgia Southern College

List of Contributors �

xii List of Contributors

McGowan, Brian M. Louisiana State UniversityMiller, Paul T. Temple UniversityMiller, Gregory Ohio State UniversityMueller, Melinda A. Eastern Illinois University

Norris, James Texas A&M International University

Olivares, Jamie Ramon Houston Community CollegeOpheim, Cynthia Southwest Texas State University

Patten, Joseph Monmouth UniversityPaulson, Darryl University of South FloridaPederson, William D. Louisiana State University, ShreveportPollard, Vincent K. University of Hawaii, Manoa

Rausch, John David, Jr. West Texas A&M UniversityRausch, Mary S. West Texas A&M UniversityRicks, Martin University of UtahRocca, Michael S. University of California, DavisRomans, Maureen Roberts Rhode Island College

Solowiej, Lisa A. Binghamton University, State Universityof New York

Schraufnagel, Scot D. University of Central FloridaSmith, Daniel E. Northwest Missouri State UniversitySteiner, Michael Northwest Missouri State UniversityStraus, Jacob University of FloridaSweet, Barry N. Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Tien, Charles Hunter College and the City University ofNew York Graduate Center

Turner, Charles California State University, Chico

Valero, Larry A. University of Salford, United KingdomVan Der Slik, Jack R. University of Illinois, SpringfieldVassilev, Rossen V. Ohio State University

Waskey, Andrew J. Dalton State CollegeWatkins, Peter St. Joseph’s College of IndianaWilliams, Jackson AARP Public Policy InstituteWoods, Michael Eastern Illinois University

xiii

Congress is the major policy-making branch of the national government of theUnited States. It is also charged with major oversight and organizational respon-sibilities over the federal bureaucracy. The authors of the Constitution clearlypreferred the legislative branch, making it the subject of Article I of their docu-ment. Likewise, visitors to Washington, D.C., will notice that the Capitol rotun-da dominates the city’s skyline and that the surrounding street network radiatesfrom Capitol Hill, the highest point in the area. Congress is physically, symbol-ically, and literally the center of action in the nation’s capital.

With 435 representatives and 100 senators, Congress always is a busy place.Its work and daily routine often appear contradictory, confusing, complex, andeven messy to outsiders. Constituents, lobbyists, the news media, members ofthe federal bureaucracy, and tourists swarm Capitol Hill almost daily. AlthoughCongress lacks the glamour of the presidency and the mystique of the SupremeCourt, the legislative branch remains the place where the American people havetended to go when in need of help. For more than two centuries, Congress hasproven to be the most eager, responsive, and resilient institution imaginable,always ready to adapt to changing needs placed upon it by the press of circum-stances and the pleas of American society.

This encyclopedia of the United States Congress is organized alphabetical-ly for ease of use. Most entries list bibliographic references, for those who wishto further explore their subjects. Entries bear the names of their authors: allentries not so designated were written by the volume’s editor. It is hoped thatthis encyclopedia accurately reflects the dynamics, energy, and complexity ofthis thoroughly American of institutions. Although a reference work, this bookis also meant to be a teaching tool wherein curious readers can learn about someunusual or interesting facts within the wealth of information available here.

Introduction�

AbscamAbscam is the name given to a sting operation of the Fed-eral Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that netted seven mem-bers of Congress, including one U.S. senator and sixmembers of the House of Representatives in 1980. Theterm Abscam refers to Abdul Enterprises, Ltd., a fictitiouscompany used by the FBI to lure public officials intoaccepting bribes. Seven members of Congress were con-victed of accepting bribes from FBI agents posing aswealthy Arab businessmen.

The news that members of Congress were videotapedaccepting bribes from FBI agents posing as Arab business-men raised serious questions about both the integrity of thelegislative process and FBI investigative tactics. U.S. repre-sentatives Richard Kelly, a Republican from Florida; MichaelMyers, a Democrat from Pennsylvania; Raymond Lederer, aDemocrat from Pennsylvania, and Frank Thompson, aDemocrat from New Jersey, were all videotaped acceptingmoney in exchange for supporting private immigration leg-islation on behalf of officials from the FBI front company.Representatives John Jenrette, a Democrat from South Car-olina, and John Murphy, a Democrat from New York, wereconvicted of accepting money through middlemen.

Harrison A. Williams, a Democrat from New Jersey,the only U.S. senator convicted in the operation, was video-taped agreeing to use his influence to obtain governmentcontracts for an imaginary titanium processing plant inexchange for a concealed financial stake in the fictitiouscompany. The senior senator from New Jersey served as thechair of the Committee on Labor and Human Resourcesat the time. Williams was convicted of bribery and conspir-acy in 1981 and served a three-year sentence for the crime.He resigned from the Senate after 23 years of service onMarch 11, 1982, in the face of overwhelming support forexpulsion. He died proclaiming his innocence on Novem-ber 17, 2001, at the age of 81.

All seven legislators were sentenced to be confinedbetween 18 months and three years, and all served jail time.

However, Representative Kelly had his conviction over-turned on an entrapment defense, despite videotape evi-dence showing him accepting $25,000 from FBI agents.Representatives Jenrette, Kelly, Murphy, and Thompsonwere all defeated in reelection bids, and RepresentativeLederer resigned from office. Representative Myers wasexpelled from the House of Representatives on October 2,1980, marking the first time a member had been expelledsince the Civil War and the last before James Traficant, aDemocrat from Ohio, was expelled on July 24, 2002.

The FBI sting operation found its way to Congress’sdoorsteps via an unrelated investigation. The Abscam oper-ation originated in 1978 in Long Island, New York, as a rel-atively routine investigation aimed at recovering stolen artand exposing fraud. The FBI recruited Melvin Weinberg,a recently arrested confidence man to assist in the opera-tion. Weinberg posed as the chair of Abdul Enterprises.This FBI front company was created to attract thievesinterested in selling stolen art or fraudulent security certifi-cates. The FBI opened a bank account under the name ofAbdul Enterprises and deposited $1 million into the accountto establish credibility and to cover operating costs.

FBI agents posing as Arab businessmen quickly estab-lished a relationship with a professional forger, who even-tually recommended that Abdul Enterprises open a gamingcasino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The agents were thenassured that Camden, New Jersey, mayor Angelo Errichetticould arrange for a gaming license in exchange for a finan-cial kickback. Errichetti was also a state senator and wasgenerally regarded as the most powerful political figure insouthern New Jersey. It was Mayor Errichetti’s involvementin the investigation that ultimately steered the FBI to otherpublic officials, including the seven members of Congress.

Mayor Errichetti eventually brought RepresentativesMyers and Lederer into the fold. Myers and Lederer werethe first members of Congress to act on behalf of the FBIfront company. They agreed to sponsor a private relief billgranting U.S. residency to Abdul Rahman and Yassir

1

A�

Habib. Rahman and Habib were actually FBI agents pos-ing as businessmen from Abdul Enterprises. Errichettithen recruited Representative Thompson, one of the mostpowerful Democratic figures in Washington. Thompsonwas videotaped accepting a briefcase holding $45,000 froman FBI agent posing as an Arab sheikh in exchange forsponsoring another private immigration bill. Thompsonthen recruited Representative Murphy. Thompson wasarrested four months later while watching his alma materplay basketball on television in his Alexandria, Virginia,home. Other middlemen eventually recruited the others.

Plea bargaining was made difficult because most of theacts were captured on videotape and aired to a surprisednation on the nightly news. The defendants thereforeemployed three separate defense strategies includingentrapment, due process, and play acting. Critics of theAbscam investigation raised questions about FBI investiga-tive tactics, arguing that the legislators were entrappedinto committing these crimes. Some of the defendantsemployed an entrapment defense, arguing that undercoveragents are typically employed when there is either evidenceof a crime or evidence that a crime is likely to be commit-ted in the future. The crux of the defense was that the FBIlured them into committing crimes they would not havecommitted otherwise. However, entrapment law requiredthe defendants to establish that the FBI did more thansimply set a trap, but had actually induced them into com-mitting the crime. Representative Kelly was successful inhis entrapment defense because the videotape showed thathe had initially rejected the bribe but was eventually per-suaded to accept it by an FBI agent. The other defendantsdid not appear to need such persuasion and were thusfound guilty.

A due process defense succeeded for a Philadelphiacouncilman who was also snared in the Abscam investiga-tion. The judge in that case ruled that the government’sinvestigative conduct was so outrageous that it rose tounconstitutional levels.

The play acting defense was used by RepresentativeKelly and Senator Williams. Kelly claimed that he acceptedthe money to use as evidence against the FBI agents tryingto bribe him, while Williams claimed that he never madeany specific promises to the agents and that he was simplypretending to be interested. The play acting defense wasunsuccessful on both counts.

In the end the Abscam scandal remains one of themost embarrassing chapters in the history of the U.S.Congress. However, the clear message that public officialsare expected to rise above the trappings of office still res-onates today. On a positive note, it is also important toacknowledge that Senator Larry Pressler, a Republicanfrom South Dakota, and many other public officials refusedbribes offered by the FBI agents.

Further reading:Green, Gary S. Occupational Crime. 2d ed. Chicago: Nel-son-Hall, 1997; Maitland, Leslie. “At the Heart of theAbscam Debate,” New York Times Magazine, 25 July 1982;Noonan, John T. Bribes. New York: Macmillan PublishingCo., 1984.

—Joseph Patton

adjournmentAdjournment terminates the proceedings of a congres-sional committee or a chamber of Congress. The motion toadjourn can be used to end a legislative day or an annualsession of Congress. A motion, which ends a legislative day,is called Adjournment to a Day Certain; in these cases law-makers set a date for the session to reconvene. TheAdjournment to a Day Certain allows for time off during anannual session and is usually done for holiday observances,a summer respite, and other brief periods of time. Thesebreaks in legislative activity that occur within an annual ses-sion are sometimes referred to as a recess. If the recess is toexceed three days (and often they do), the adjournment isdone by concurrent resolution. This practice is necessitatedby the constitutional provision found in Article 1, section5, that stipulates that neither chamber of Congress mayadjourn for more than three days (Sundays excepted) with-out the consent of the other.

When a motion to adjourn is done at the end of anannual legislative session, it is known as Adjournment SineDie (adjournment without a day). This is also carried outby concurrent resolution. Although the sine die provisionsuggests that there is no particular day when Congress willreconvene, this is not actually the case. The Constitutionhas determined that Congress shall meet in annual ses-sion on January 3 unless the chambers decide to meet ona different day, which they often do. So the real differencebetween the two forms of adjournment is that theAdjournment to a Day Certain is an intersession break,and Adjournment Sine Die is an intra session adjournmentor an adjournment to end a specific two-year Congress. Itshould be noted that, constitutionally, the president couldrequire the Congress to adjourn on a specific date if thechambers are unable to agree on a day. However, this hasnever happened.

Further reading:How Congress Works. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: Congres-sional Quarterly Inc., 2000; Ru, Robert, Henry M. Robert III,William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, and Thomas J.Balch. Robert’s Rules of Order. 10th ed. Cambridge, Mass.:Perseus Publishing, 2000; Wetterau, Bruce. Desk Referenceon American Government. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: Con-gressional Quarterly Inc., 2000.

—Scot D. Schraufnagel

2 adjournment

adjournment and recess (House ofRepresentatives)In the House of Representatives a motion to adjourn ishighly privileged and, except for rare instances, is in orderonce a member has been recognized by the floor leader.One instance in which the motion to adjourn is not in order(or allowed) is when the chamber is meeting as the COM-MITTEE OF THE WHOLE. The standard motion to adjourndoes not require a quorum to be present, and the motionis not debatable. Of course, the motion to adjourn may bevoted down by a majority of those present. Furthermore, arules change in the 103rd Congress allowed the SPEAKEROF THE HOUSE to adjourn or suspend the business of theHouse of Representatives at any time, provided there is noquestion pending on the floor. The rules change alsogranted the floor leader the discretion at any time to rec-ognize a motion from members that authorizes the Speakerto declare a recess.

The House, unlike the Senate, with few exceptionsadjourns each calendar day. Once adjourned, the LEGISLA-TIVE DAY ends. The consequence of adjourning each cal-endar day (as opposed to a simple recess) is that legislativedays and calendar days coincide with one another. This isnot the case in the Senate. In the House of Representativesthere is no ambiguity about what represents a day. Becausethe House adjourns each day, however, it must start thenext day’s session with all the normal proceedings that char-acterize the beginning of a legislative day in the House(such as approval of the JOURNAL, prayer, and the Pledge ofAllegiance to the flag). There are times in the House whena unanimous consent agreement will dispense with some ofthe elements of the formal beginning of a legislative day.

See also ADJOURNMENT and ADJOURNMENT ANDRECESS, SENATE.

Further reading:Partner, Daniel. The House of Representatives. Broomall,Pa.: Chelsea House Publishers, 2000; Stewart, Charles.Analyzing Congress. New York: Norton, 2001.

—Scot D. Schraufnagel

adjournment and recess (Senate)The Senate can end its daily proceedings by means of amotion to recess or a motion to adjourn. However, recessesare much more common. Strictly speaking, a recess is a“short intermission within a meeting which does not endthe meeting or destroy its continuity as a single gathering.”The significance of the Senate breaking each day via recessas opposed to adjournment is that it allows the Senate todispense with the standard procedural events associatedwith the MORNING HOUR. The morning hour occurs at thebeginning of each legislative day in the Senate and is filled

with procedural requirements such as correcting the jour-nal from the previous day and considering resolutions. Themorning hour normally lasts about two hours. When theSenate reconvenes after a recess it simply picks up whereit left off on the previous calendar day. In short, by endinga day with a recess instead of an adjournment, the Senateis able to save time. Of course, this practice causes SenateLEGISLATIVE DAYS to be out of sync with the real-world cal-endar. However, it is commonly held that the convenienceof being able to dispense with the morning hour easily off-sets the problem of legislative days and calendar days beingincongruent.

See also ADJOURNMENT and ADJOURNMENT ANDRECESS, HOUSE.

Further reading:Baker, Ross K. House and Senate. 3d ed. New York: Norton,2000; Stewart, Charles. Analyzing Congress. New York:Norton, 2001.

—Scot D. Schraufnagel

advice and consentConstitutional powers granted to the United States SENATEthat requires that chamber to approve TREATIES and con-firm presidential APPOINTMENTS have been termed adviceand consent powers.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides thepresident the power, by and with the advice and consent ofthe Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of thesenators present concur. By and with the advice of the Sen-ate, the president also has the power to appoint ambas-sadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of theSupreme Court, and all other officers of the United States.

When the Senate acts on treaties and presidentialappointments that come to it under Article II, it engages inexecutive business and follows a different procedure than itdoes when it engages in legislative business under Article I.The Senate maintains an executive calendar upon whichtreaties and nominations are placed when a committeereports them. The EXECUTIVE SESSION proceedings arerecorded in a separate Executive Journal. Executive busi-ness is conducted in executive session. The Senate usuallymeets in legislative session each day. By MOTION or UNAN-IMOUS CONSENT, the Senate will resolve into executive ses-sion to deal with executive business. Senate Rule XXIIgoverns the process of resolving into executive session.

Treaties are typically referred to the FOREIGN RELA-TIONS COMMITTEE. A treaty is a formal compact betweenthe United States and one or more other nations. SenateRule XXX governs the process of reviewing treaties. Mostof the time the Senate considers treaties in open session,but there have been occasions when secret sessions were

advice and consent 3

held to consider classified information. Treaties do not dieat the end of a Congress if not approved by the Senate. In1986 the Senate ratified the Genocide Treaty that had beensubmitted by President Harry Truman in 1947. If a presi-dent believes that he will not be able to get the Senate toapprove a treaty, he may avoid the process by entering intoan executive agreement. Such agreements do not requireSenate approval.

During the 108th Congress, Senate Rule XXXI gov-erned presidential nominations. The nominations arereferred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction. Somecommittees review a large number of nominations, whileother committees consider very few. Nominations have tobe approved by a majority vote of the Senate meeting inexecutive session. Rule XXXI stipulates that the presidingofficer asks, Will the Senate advise and consent to this nom-ination? Nominations die at the end of a session. The Con-stitution permits the president to fill all vacancies that mayhappen during a Senate recess. These appointments arecalled recess appointments.

When a new president is elected, an official document,U.S. Government Policy and Supporting Positions (the“plum book”), lists positions that the president fills byappointment. Because of the large number of positions thatneed to be filled annually, a process has developed. About99 percent of nominations are to minor positions. When avacancy occurs, the White House identifies appropriatecandidates. After a background check and a review of theintended nominee with senators in order to avoid problemswith senatorial courtesy, the president announces a nomi-nee. The nomination is sent to the Senate, where it isreferred to a committee and public hearings are held. Priorto 1929 hearings were closed to the public. The committeethen votes on the nomination and sends it to the Senatefloor. Following debate the Senate votes on the nomination.

Most treaties and nominations to minor positions areapproved with little controversy. Since 1789 only 21 treatieshave been rejected by the full Senate. On March 9, 1825,the full Senate defeated a treaty with Colombia on the sup-pression of the African slave trade. This was the first treatyrejected by the Senate. The Senate rejected an annexationtreaty with the Republic of Texas on June 8, 1844. On Octo-ber 13, 1999, the Senate rejected the ComprehensiveNuclear Test Ban Treaty by a vote of 48 to 51.

One of the most famous treaties rejected by the Senatewas the Treaty of Versailles, ending World War I and estab-lishing the League of Nations. The Senate voted twice toreject the treaty, in 1919 and 1920. The treaty was defeated inpart because a senator did not participate in the treaty nego-tiations. The question of whether senators should participatein treaty negotiations has never been answered definitively.

Nominees to major positions such as federal judges,members of regulatory bodies, and key executive and diplo-

matic personnel not covered by the merit systems, face theclosest scrutiny. Historically, Supreme Court justice nomi-nees have faced the most controversy, and such nomineeshave been rejected most often. Since 1789 27 SupremeCourt appointees were either rejected or decided to with-draw under the threat of rejection. Some 20 of the failedappointments were in the 19th century. All Supreme Courtjustice appointees were confirmed in the period from 1930through 1967. Since then, the Senate rejected two of Pres-ident Richard Nixon’s nominees to the Supreme Court in1969. In 1987 the Senate rejected Judge ROBERT BORK,President Ronald Reagan’s appointee.

Appointees to nonjudicial positions also have failed tobe approved by the Senate. The first nominee to be rejectedby the Senate was Benjamin Fishbourn of Georgia, nomi-nated in 1789 by President George Washington to be a cus-toms collector in Savannah. The Georgia senators exercisedSENATORIAL COURTESY to block Fishbourn’s appointment.In 1926 the Senate twice in six days rejected PresidentCalvin Coolidge’s nomination of Charles Warren to be attor-ney general. The Senate in 1989 rejected former Texas sen-ator John Tower’s nomination to be secretary of Defense inthe George H.W. Bush administration, becoming the firstcabinet nominee of a new president ever to be rejected.

The politics of the presidential appointment process wasthe subject of political fiction in the book Advise and Consent,written by Allen Drury, a Capitol Hill journalist, in 1959. Theplot centers on the controversial nomination of liberal RobertLeffingwell to be secretary of State. Conservatives in the Sen-ate mobilized to oppose him. The book was made into aBroadway play and a 1962 movie directed by Otto Premingerstarring Henry Fonda as Robert Leffingwell.

Further reading:Gerhardt, Michael J. The Federal Appointments Process: AConstitutional and Historical Analysis. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press, 2000; McCarty, Nolan, and RoseRazaghian. “Advice and Consent: Senate Responses toExecutive Branch Nominations, 1885–1996.” AmericanJournal of Political Science 43, no. 4 (1999): 112–143;United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role ofthe United States Senate. Senate Print 106-71. Washing-ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2001.

—John David Rausch, Jr.

agendaWithin the U.S. Congress an agenda is a list of legislativepriorities. Before Congress can produce public policy out-comes, the issue or topic must reach the governmentagenda. The government agenda is a metaphorical list ofissues that are important enough to warrant government

4 agenda

attention. When something is said to be on the agenda, itmeans that politicians, bureaucrats, policy analysts, andinterest groups who deal with the issue or problem are pay-ing it serious attention.

Congress must work in an atmosphere that has at leastfour sources of agendas. Congressional leaders have agen-das that they wish to see enacted, and they seek the assis-tance of their fellow partisans in both houses to push theissues through the legislative process. The president has anagenda of issues important to him that he works to enact. Inthe case of unified government, the majority leadership’sagenda and the president’s agenda usually include similarobjectives. During periods of DIVIDED GOVERNMENT, thebranches will come into conflict in trying to enact theiragendas. Interest groups also have legislative agendas thatthey bring to the House of Representatives and the Sen-ate. Finally, individual members of Congress have agendason which they were elected or reelected. Members can additems to their agendas as they continue to serve inCongress.

Political scientists study the process through whichitems reach the agendas. The process is called agenda set-ting. Agenda setting is studied using a variety of methods.Scholars have tracked the agenda by counting the appear-ance of items in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and in majornewspapers such as the New York Times. Other scholarshave interviewed knowledgeable observers to determinewhat policy issues are important over a period of time.Some studies involve case analyses of the emergence of aparticular issue across time within a given country or bycomparing two or more countries.

One of the most publicized congressional agendas wasthe CONTRACT WITH AMERICA developed by HouseRepublicans in 1994. During the 1994 congressional cam-paign, the House Republican leadership developed a coher-ent, specific, 10-point program they called the ContractWith America. Most of the party’s House candidates signeda pledge to follow the contract if elected. The party’s effortwas successful. By the time a self-imposed deadline of 100days had passed, the House had approved nine of the 10items. The only item that failed to pass the House was a con-stitutional amendment proposal to impose term limits onmembers of Congress. Senate Republicans were not boundby the contract, and many of the items failed to win Senateapproval.

Further reading:Kingdon, John. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.Boston: Little, Brown, 1984; Wolbrecht, Charles. “FemaleLegislators and the Women’s Rights Agenda.” In WomenTransforming Congress, edited by Cindy Simon Rosenthal.Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002.

—John David Rausch, Jr.

Aging, Senate Special Committee onThe Senate Special Committee on Aging was established in1961 as a temporary committee. It was granted permanentstatus on February 1, 1977. As a SPECIAL COMMITTEErather than a STANDING COMMITTEE, this panel does nothave the authority to propose new laws, but it can studyissues, oversee programs, and investigate reports of fraudand waste. The committee can also make recommendationsto the full Senate for discussion of particular issues.Throughout its existence the Special Committee on Aginghas served as a focal point in the Senate for discussion anddebate on matters relating to older Americans. Often thecommittee has submitted its findings and recommenda-tions for legislation to the Senate. In addition, the panel haspublished materials to assist persons interested in publicpolicies related to the elderly.

The committee has had a reputation for being active,particularly in exploring health insurance coverage of olderAmericans prior to the enactment of Medicare in 1965. Itcollected much of the data used to enact the Medicare pro-gram. Since the passage of that legislation, the committeehas continually reviewed Medicare’s performance on analmost annual basis. The committee has also regularlyreviewed pension coverage and employment opportunitiesfor older Americans and has conducted oversight of theadministration of major programs such as SOCIAL SECU-RITY and the Older Americans Act. Finally, it has crusadedagainst frauds targeting the elderly, from telephone scan-dals to electronic mail scandals. One of the committee’smost influential reports dealt with unacceptable conditionsfound in nursing homes.

In addition, panel members worked to increase pro-tections for seniors against age discrimination and evaluatethe pay system used by Medicare. Specifically, SenatorJohn Heinz, a Republican from Pennsylvania, reviewedMedicare’s Prospective Payment System to verify that thesystem was forcing Medicare beneficiaries to be discharged“quicker and sicker.” Other substantive areas of intereststudied by the committee include pricing practices for pre-scription drugs and health care antifraud legislation. Theyalso studied the impact and necessity of long-term care pro-grams as well as abuses in the funeral industry. Over theyears the committee has been at the center of the debateon issues of central concern to older Americans. In the108th Congress Senator Larry Craig, a Republican fromIdaho, was the chair of the committee. The most recentfocus of committee members has been on examiningpredatory lending practices as well as responses to thethreat of mad cow disease.

Further reading:Goldreich, Samuel. “Status Quo for Panel on Aging.”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 9 November

Aging, Senate Special Committee on 5

2002, p. 2,928; United States Senate Special Committeeon Aging. Available online. URL: http://aging.senate.gov/.Accessed January 16, 2006.

—Nancy S, Lind

Agriculture, House Committee onSince 1820 agriculture has been a standing committee of theU.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The Committee onAgriculture was established during the 16th Congressthrough a resolution introduced by Lewis Williams of NorthCarolina on May 3, 1820, with Thomas Forrest of Pennsyl-vania as its first chair. Forrest, a Federalist, served as chairfor the duration of the Congress. Originally consisting ofseven members, the committee’s size of 51 was set in 2001.

In 1862 the committee approved legislation creating aBureau of Agriculture within the executive branch of thefederal government. The bureau was to be headed by acommissioner appointed by the president. The committeesupported the establishment of a cabinet-level Departmentof Agriculture in 1889. During the recession followingWorld War I, the committee chair, Gilbert Nelson Haugenof Iowa, joined with his counterpart in the Senate, CharlesMcNary of Oregon, to sponsor the McNary-Haugen FarmBill. Beginning in 1924 the two introduced the bill that pro-vided for the federal government to purchase surplus agri-cultural products for sale overseas. President CalvinCoolidge twice vetoed the bill (stating in his 1927 veto mes-sage that the bill went against an economic law as wellestablished as any law of nature [Neal 1985: 101]). In 1928Coolidge called the bill a system of wholesale commercialdoles (Neal 1985: 105). The proposal was a forerunner ofPresident Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s NEW DEAL agricul-tural policies.

Originally, the committee’s jurisdiction was subjectsrelating to agriculture. In 1880 House rules were amendedto extend the committee’s jurisdiction to forestry andreporting the appropriations for the Department of Agri-culture. In 1920 jurisdiction over the Department of Agri-culture’s appropriations was returned to the HouseAPPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. In 1933 the committeeassumed jurisdiction for farm credit.

The current jurisdiction of the committee took effectin January 1947, when the House revised its rules as partof the LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946 andincluded the following areas of jurisdiction for the com-mittee: adulteration of seeds, insect pests, and protection ofbirds and animals in forest reserves; agriculture generally;agricultural and industrial chemistry; agricultural collegesand experiment stations; agricultural economics andresearch; agricultural education extension services; agricul-tural production and marketing and stabilization of pricesof agricultural products and commodities; animal industry

and diseases of animals; commodity exchanges; crop insur-ance and soil conservation; dairy industry; entomology andplant quarantine; extension of farm credit and farm secu-rity; inspection of livestock, poultry, meat products, andseafood and seafood products; forestry in general and for-est reserves other than those created from the publicdomain; human nutrition and home economics; plantindustry, soils, and agricultural engineering; rural electrifi-cation; and rural development and water conservation.

During the 108th Congress, House Agriculture had fivesubcommittees: the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,Rural Development and Research; the Subcommittee onGeneral Farm Commodities and Risk Management; theSubcommittee on Specialty Crops and Foreign AgriculturePrograms; the Subcommittee on Department Operations,Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry; and the Subcommittee onLivestock and Agriculture. The committee’s chair, Republi-can Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, assumed the chair at thebeginning of the 108th Congress (January 3, 2003).

Among the important legislation that has been consid-ered by the committee has been the Federal Meat Inspec-tion Act of 1906, which authorized the Department ofAgriculture to conduct meat inspections and condemn anymeat deemed unfit for human consumption; the Soil Con-servation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, which cre-ated a financial assistance program that aided farmers whoengaged in soil conservation; the National School LunchAct; the Poultry Products Inspection Act; the Food andAgriculture Act of 1962; the Food Stamp Act; the ChildNutrition Act of 1966; and the Federal Crop InsuranceReform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Actof 1994, which repealed a number of the New Deal pro-grams that provided financial assistance to farmers.

Further reading:Neal, Steve. McNary of Oregon: A Political Biography.Portland, Ore.: Western Imprints, 1985; Opie, John. TheLaw of the Land: 200 Years of American Farmland Policy.Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994; United StatesHouse of Representatives Committee on Agriculture.United States House of Representatives Committee on Agri-culture 150th Anniversary, House Document 91-350, 91stCongress, 2d session, 1970.

—Jeffrey Kraus

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, SenateCommittee onThis standing committee in the U.S. Senate considersissues affecting American agriculture, forestry, and nutri-tion programs. The Senate created a standing Committeeon Agriculture on December 9, 1825, the first new stand-ing committee created after the establishment of the first

6 Agriculture, House Committee on

12 committees in 1816. The committee was created duringa debate over dividing the Committee on Commerce andManufactures. Senator William Findley of Pennsylvaniaargued that agriculture was one branch of the three greatbranches of domestic industry. Findley convinced his col-leagues that agriculture was as important as commercialenterprises, especially in the new western states that hadrecently entered the Union. Findley was named the com-mittee’s first chair. The first piece of legislation consideredby the new committee was a bill placing a duty on importsof alcoholic spirits, an issue important to Findley’s Penn-sylvania constituents.

During the first four decades of the committee’s exis-tence, the federal government had a limited role in agri-culture. This was reflected in the small number of billsreferred to the committee. In March 1857 the Senateadopted a resolution amending Senate rules to consolidateor abolish certain standing committees in order to increaseefficiency. The Committee on Agriculture was abolished.

The committee was revived in 1863. The federal gov-ernment’s role in agriculture was growing as PresidentAbraham Lincoln signed legislation creating the U.S.Department of Agriculture in 1862. Congress also hadenacted the Homestead Act, making lands available in thenew states and territories for the large number of immi-grants coming to the United States. The Morrill LandGrant College Act of 1862 also provided impetus for the re-creation of the committee. Senators believed that there wasnow a need for a standing committee to consider legislationrelating to agriculture.

The existence of the Committee on Agriculture wasthreatened in 1867 by the creation of a Committee onAppropriations. Jurisdiction over appropriations for agricul-tural programs slowly moved to the new committee, leavingsome agriculture committee members fearing that theircommittee would be abolished. The committee tried toregain some of its jurisdiction in 1883, when it reported a res-olution amending Senate rules to transfer jurisdiction overDepartment of Agriculture appropriations from the Com-mittee on Appropriations back to the Committee on Agri-culture. The full Senate did not take action on the resolution.

In 1884, after the Bureau of Forestry was added to theDepartment of Agriculture, the committee’s name waschanged to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.The power of all standing committees in the Senate wasincreased when the Senate approved a resolution amendingthe rules to require referral of certain general appropria-tions to authorizing committees. Department of Agricul-ture appropriations would be referred to the committee.

The committee’s legislative role grew as the nation andthe federal government grew. In 1906 the enactment of theFood and Drug Act gave the committee significant over-sight of a new regulatory agency to ensure the safety of

meat. Through the 1930s the committee was transformedas major farm programs were created to assist farmers hurtby the Great Depression. In 1946 the Committee on Agri-culture and Forestry was granted formal jurisdiction overagricultural issues as defined by Senate rules approvedafter the LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT was passed.This act provided the first written statements of commit-tee jurisdictions in both chambers.

The committee’s jurisdiction increased during the1950s as Congress enacted legislation in the area of soil con-servation. The Watershed Protection and Flood PreventionAct of 1954 authorized the Department of Agriculturethrough its Social Conservation Service to provide techni-cal and financial assistance to local groups working to main-tain watersheds and implement flood prevention. In 1955,recognizing the increased size of its jurisdiction, the com-mittee created its first subcommittee, an action allowedunder the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Five sub-committees were created in that year: Soil Conservation andForestry; Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification;Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization ofPrices; Agricultural and General Legislation; and Tobacco.

The federal government’s involvement in school lunchand other nutrition programs widened the committee’sjurisdiction. The Senate parliamentarian regularly referredfood and nutrition bills to the Committee on Agriculturein spite of the lack of a jurisdictional direction because hebelieved that the committee had the best understanding offood production and distribution. In 1977 the committee’sname was changed to the Committee on Agriculture,Forestry, and Nutrition to reflect the importance of thesenutrition programs.

The Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committeewas one of 16 standing committees in the 108th Congress(2003–04). It had 21 members (11 Republicans and 10Democrats) primarily from southern, central, and westernstates. The chair was Mississippi senator Thad Cochran andthe ranking Democrat was Iowa senator Tom Harkin. Thecommittee had four subcommittees: Production and PriceCompetitiveness; Marketing, Inspection, and Product Pro-motion; Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization;and Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation. The sub-committees approximated the committee’s jurisdiction.

Further reading:Deering, Christopher J., and Steven S. Smith. Committeesin Congress. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quar-terly Press, 1997; Fulton, Tom. The United States SenateCommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry1825–1998: Members, Jurisdiction, and History. SenateDocument 105-24. Washington, D.C.: Government Print-ing Office, 1998.

—John David Rausch, Jr.

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Senate Committee on 7

Albert, Carl Bert (1908–2000) Speaker of the Houseof Representatives

The “Little Giant from Little Dixie” became the 46thSpeaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in January1971. He served during a unique time in American history.Twice in the immediate line of succession to president ofthe United States, first after the resignation of Vice Presi-dent Spiro Agnew and then President Richard Nixon, hewas one of the few national leaders in the nation’s capitalwho did not aspire to that high office.

The life and Speakership of Albert is a story of a tal-ented, hard-working, self-effacing man who wanted tostrengthen the institutions of democracy in the UnitedStates more than he wanted to wield personal politicalpower. He was a transition figure, building a bridgebetween a past that no longer adequately functioned anda future that required a stronger centralized congressionalleadership. Above all, he was an institutionalist. Albertloved the United States, its Constitution, Congress, andother democratic institutions as well as his home state ofOklahoma and district in “Little Dixie.” His contributionsto the reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, histransformation of the Speaker’s position into a moderninstitution, and his ability to keep the Congress and thecountry united during times of great controversy and cri-sis were the result of hard, intelligent work behind thescenes instead of in front of the camera, microphone, orpress. Carl Albert preferred private compromise over pub-lic confrontation.

The son of a coal miner and farmer, Earnest Albert,and his wife, Leona Albert, Carl Bert Albert was born onMay 10, 1908, north of McAlester, in Pittsburg County,Oklahoma. It was as a young schoolboy that Carl Albertheard his local congressman, Charles D. Carter, speak anddecided at that moment to make his career serving in the

U.S. Congress. He graduated from McAlester High Schoolin 1927. The winner of a national oratory contest, Albertattended the University of Oklahoma, where he graduatedPhi Beta Kappa in 1931 and was selected as a RhodesScholar in Oxford, England. He graduated in 1934 and wasadmitted to the bar in 1935. Returning from England,Albert worked for the Federal Housing Administration andlater as an attorney practicing petroleum law. During WorldWar II Albert served in the Pacific. He began as a privateand ended the war a lieutenant colonel. He won a BronzeStar.

In 1946, when a vacancy occurred in his home ThirdCongressional District, the diminutive Albert campaignedin Little Dixie, a poverty-stricken region in southeasternOklahoma and was elected by a margin of fewer than 400votes. He was to serve for 12 more terms. While in theHouse of Representatives, Albert supported agriculture,public power, civil rights (later in his legislative career),hunting (until later in his career), and a strong nationaldefense. Above all, he championed domestic programs thatwere designed to alleviate poverty in his home district.

Albert quickly became the protégé of Speaker SAMUELRAYBURN, with whom he shared borders of their congres-sional districts. Rayburn recognized Albert’s intelligenceand above all his ability to count votes accurately. As aresult, Albert was named his party’s WHIP in 1955. At thattime the power of the Speaker was the power to persuade.Albert was one of the party faithful who in 1961, under theleadership of Speaker Rayburn, stripped “Judge” HowardSmith of his iron grip on the U.S. House Rules Committeeand strengthened the position of the Speaker.

When JOHN MCCORMACK moved up to the Speaker-ship in 1962, Albert also moved up to the position ofMAJORITY LEADER despite a challenge from Representa-tive RICHARD BOLLING, a Democrat from Missouri. Thiswas one of his few public victories. While Albert’s politicaldefeats were well reported, his triumphs were usually keptout of the public spotlight. For the next nine years Albertserved as a broker between the established House leader-ship of Democrats and liberal Democratic reformers.Albert’s head was with the reformers, but his heart was withthe traditional leadership. It was Albert who in 1969 per-suaded Speaker McCormack to revive the DemocraticCaucus.

Albert’s ascension to the Speakership in 1971 placedhim in the middle of the debate over the Vietnam conflict.This was followed by a bitter election and the impeach-ment hearings of President Richard Nixon. During histenure as Speaker, Albert presided over a House facing anation torn over divisive social issues and severe economicchallenges. A hawk on defense matters and internationalaffairs, he was a bitter foe of the economic policies of boththe Nixon and Gerald Ford administrations. During the

8 Albert, Carl Bert

President Gerald Ford addressing Congress as Speaker of theHouse Carl Albert (right) looks on, 1974 (Library of Congress)

Nixon impeachment hearing, Speaker Albert stayed aloof,letting the process take its course without his personalinvolvement. As the highest elected Democratic officialduring both the Nixon and Ford administrations, Albertwas thrown into the spotlight as Speaker for his party, aposition he neither sought nor relished. Albert believed innational unity and resisted divisiveness in both theCongress and the country even at the cost of potentialpolitical power and popularity.

Albert’s reform of the House of Representatives wentalmost unnoticed outside the institution. House businesswas handled fairly and efficiently in the face of war, bitterelection campaigns, and impeachment hearings. Almostwithout fanfare he became chair of the DEMOCRATICSTEERING COMMITTEE and was able to nominate hisparty’s membership of the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES.He made wide use of ad hoc committees and task forces,laying the groundwork for the modern leadership. WhenAlbert departed Congress the elected House leadershipdecided committee assignments and had some control overbills in the Rules Committee. The Democratic Caucus wasa functioning body. Before his tenure none of this was true.

There was a wide perceptual gap between the Albertwho was respected and admired by the members of hishome congressional district and the national legislativeleader who was routinely underestimated and unappreci-ated in the nation’s capital. Albert had a strong local officehandling constituent affairs in his home district but a weakpublic and media presence in the District of Columbia.Although later in his career he was probably more liberalthan many of his constituents on matters of social and eco-nomic policy, they were proud of him as one of their own.Albert’s public reputation both in Oklahoma and in thenation’s capital was one of honesty, fairness, integrity, intel-ligence, hard work, and financial independence from inter-est groups.

Carl Albert did not seek reelection in 1976, retiring toMcAlester, Oklahoma. He died February 4, 2000.

There are many institutional memorials to him in Okla-homa. Carl Albert State College in Poteau, Oklahoma, isprobably the best known to those who live in his homestate. However, it is the Carl Albert CongressionalResearch and Studies Center with its congressionalarchives and internship program at the University of Okla-homa in Norman, Oklahoma, that offers the greatest trib-ute to Albert’s political career. This center has become aleading institution for research on the American Congress,dominating the scholastic world in this field of study.

Further reading:Albert, Carl Bert, with Danney Goble. Little Giant: The Lifeand Times of Speaker Carl Albert. Norman: University ofOklahoma Press, 1990; Peabody, Robert L., and Nelson

Polsby, eds. New Perspectives on the House of Representa-tives. 2d ed. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969; Peters, RonaldM. Jr. The American Speakership: The Office in HistoricalPerspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,1999; Peters, Ronald L. Jr., ed. The Speaker: Leadership inthe U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: Con-gressional Quarterly Press, 1995; DeCosta Wides, Louise.Carl Albert, Democratic Representative from Oklahoma.Washington, D.C.: Grossman (Ralph Nader Congress Pro-ject Citizens Look at Congress), 1972.

—Tom Clapper

Aldrich, Nelson W. (1841–1915) SenatorNelson Aldrich was a prominent member of Congress formore than three decades. He was a Republican U.S. rep-resentative and U.S. senator from Rhode Island, Senateleader, and a coauthor of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909.

Born in Foster, Rhode Island, in 1841, Aldrich receivedan education in Connecticut and at the East GreenwichAcademy in Rhode Island. At the age of 17 he became aclerk and bookkeeper for a grocery wholesaler in Provi-dence, Rhode Island. During the Civil War he served withthe Tenth Rhode Island Volunteers in Washington, D.C.,returning to Providence after the war to become a partnerin a grocery business.

A Republican since before the war, Aldrich enteredpolitical life in 1869 by winning election to the ProvidenceCity Council. He left the city council after winning a seat inthe Rhode Island General Assembly in 1875, serving asspeaker from 1876 to 1877. He was elected to the U.S.House of Representatives as a Republican in 1878 andreelected in 1880. In 1881 the Rhode Island legislatureelected him to the U.S. Senate, succeeding the late gen-eral Ambrose Burnside. He was reelected to the Senate in1886, 1892, 1898, and 1904.

In the Senate Aldrich worked to build the industrialcapability of the United States. Opposing the federal regu-lation of business, Aldrich voted against the InterstateCommerce Act of 1887. Early in his career he wasappointed to the SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, even-tually rising to chair. He used his position to protect theinterests of eastern manufacturers by using the protectivetariff. Aldrich was involved in developing the “Mongrel Tar-iff” of 1883. He proposed the Republican alternative to theMills Bill of 1888. He worked to shepherd the McKinleyTariff of 1890 through the Senate. When the Senate wasunder the control of the Democrats, Aldrich worked withthe Democratic leadership to assure that tariff rates werenot cut so sharply as to damage American manufacturing.He supported lower tariffs on imports that benefited east-ern corporations. For example, he worked to lower or elim-inate duties on raw sugar to benefit refiners in the East.

Aldrich, Nelson W. 9

Some critics claimed that his support of industry stemmedfrom apparent close ties with the Standard Oil Company,an allegation Aldrich stridently denied. Despite the factthat his daughter Abby was married to John D. Rockefeller,Jr., Aldrich noted that he had met John D. Rockefeller, Sr.,only three times.

When the Republicans controlled the Senate, he wasa leader in that chamber. His seniority and position on theFinance Committee allowed Aldrich to extend his author-ity among the members of the Republican caucus. His abil-ity to mobilize campaign contributions also allowed him toparticipate in making committee assignments. Aldrich’spower stemmed largely from his political sense andstrength of will, since, other than Finance Committeechairman, he held no official position in the Senate.

He was an opponent of free silver, working to enact theGold Standard Act of 1900. He indicated that he wouldsupport bimetallism only if it was adopted around theworld. Aldrich was not an isolationist, seeing the potentialfor profits in the markets of Latin America and East Asia.His support enabled the Senate to ratify the treaty provid-ing for the acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Ricoafter the Spanish-American War. He also worked for thepassage of the Platt Amendment, allowing the UnitedStates to intervene in the internal affairs of Cuba.

In his role as a Senate Republican leader, Aldrichmaintained a complex and often difficult relationship withprogressive Republican president Theodore Roosevelt.Aldrich was not an ally of the progressives in the Republi-can Party. President Roosevelt recognized the senator’spower and respected his ability to move legislation throughthat chamber. During the president’s first term the menwere on good terms. Aldrich supported Roosevelt’s ven-tures in Panama, and Aldrich allowed Roosevelt to engagein some regulation of American business interests. Thepresident deferred to Aldrich and his Senate allies on issuesimportant to them, such as the tariff.

After 1904 Aldrich’s relationship with the presidentbecame more complex. Part of the problem was that manyof Aldrich’s allies and friends in the Senate were retiring.The senator was not able to recognize the increasingpower of progressivism in the Republican Party, and hispositions were becoming much more isolated. He soonbecame identified with the special interests seen as con-trolling the Senate. In 1906 President Roosevelt sought toexpand the authority of the Interstate Commerce Com-mission. Aldrich was able to limit the expansion by amend-ing the Hepburn Act to provide for judicial review ofcommission decisions. The senator was able to block manyof the items on the president’s reform agenda for the restof Roosevelt’s term in office. The men’s relationship wasstrained to the point that Aldrich refused to visit the WhiteHouse for a number of years.

Despite a long career in the Senate, Aldrich is identi-fied by name on few bills. One of these, the Aldrich-Vree-land Act of 1908, provided a method for banks to issue notesbased on securities other than federal bonds. The legislationalso created the National Monetary Commission thatAldrich chaired. The Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 was oneof the senator’s last bills. Shortly after taking office PresidentWilliam Howard Taft asked Congress to enact tariff reform.A tariff bill written by House Ways and Means Committeechairman Sereno Payne, a Republican from New York,passed the House. Aldrich amended the bill in the Senateby raising the tariffs on most goods. One of the proposals thesenator offered in working to secure passage of the tariffbill was a constitutional amendment authorizing a federalincome tax. This maneuver was unusual because it had beena goal of the progressives. After a conference committeeapproved the changes, President Taft signed the bill enact-ing the first changes in tariff laws since 1897.

The bill was not a victory for Aldrich, as it caused a pro-gressive Republican uprising against the more conserva-tive Senate leadership, and the Rhode Island senator lostmost of his power. Shortly after progressive members of theHouse of Representatives deposed Speaker Joseph Can-non, a Republican from Illinois, and removed him from theHouse Rules Committee, it was reported that many of theinsurgents yelled “On to Aldrich.” Progressive Republi-cans saw the senator as as much of an obstacle to progressas Cannon had been. This further isolated the aging sena-tor, and he did not seek reelection in 1910.

The conflict between the conservative and progressivewings of the Republican Party eventually allowed theDemocrats to regain control of Congress after the electionof 1910. Many of the same progressives left the party in1912, supporting former president Roosevelt on the BullMoose ticket. Aldrich continued to work on currencyreform as the chair of the National Monetary Commission.In 1911 the commission presented the “Aldrich Plan”proposing a National Reserve Association, something simi-lar to a centralized bank. Regional banks, organized in dis-tricts, would be able to share reserves, allowing the moneysupply to grow and shrink as the national economy war-ranted. The American Bankers’ Association endorsed theplan, but it failed in Congress in part because Aldrich wastoo closely aligned with special interests. In 1912 the Demo-cratic Party won the presidency campaigning on a platformthat included a rejection of the Aldrich Plan. Democrats inCongress were able to pass the Federal Reserve Act in 1913,a bill similar to Aldrich’s idea of a central banking associa-tion. The former senator opposed the 1913 act because hequestioned the abilities of a Federal Reserve Board com-prised of political appointees. His proposal included a boardof directors appointed by the member banks. NelsonAldrich died of a stroke on April 16, 1915, in New York City.

10 Aldrich, Nelson W.

Further reading:Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinter-pretation of American History, 1900–1916. New York: FreePress of Glencoe, 1963; Rothman, David J. Politics andPower: The United States Senate 1869–1901. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966; Stephenson,Nathaniel W. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in American Pol-itics. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1971.

—John David Rausch, Jr.

amendingThe process of changing the content of legislation as it isconsidered in committee markup sessions or on the floor ofthe HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES or the SENATE is calledamending. A bill may be amended at as many as seven dif-ferent stages of the legislative process. The legislation maybe amended in a House subcommittee, in that subcommit-tee’s parent committee, and on the House floor. A bill alsomay be amended in a Senate subcommittee and in the Sen-ate committee as well as on the Senate floor. Finally, the billmay be amended when the House and Senate try to reachfinal agreement on the bill’s content, either in the confer-ence committee or by an exchange of amendmentsbetween the two chambers.

Most bills are considered first by a subcommittee inthe House or the Senate. After holding public hearings onthe bill, the subcommittee decides whether to consideramendments to it at a markup session. After making addi-tions and deletions to the bill, the subcommittee debatesthe final product before voting to report it to the full com-mittee. In the full committee the bill may go through thesame process of hearings and markup.

The process is essentially the same in the Senate.The subcommittees and committees in both houses gen-erally follow chamber rules for amending from the floor.The smaller size of the Senate subcommittees and com-mittees results in a less formal amending process andstructure than the process in House subcommittees andcommittees.

Chamber rules specify that only the full House andthe full Senate may amend pieces of legislation. Commit-tees and subcommittees only make recommendations inthe form of amendments. The full chamber must approvecommittee recommendations before they are incorpo-rated into the bill. Committee amendments are the firstitems to be acted upon when the bill reaches the floor ofthe House or Senate. House members or senators mayamend the committee amendments before the amend-ments are voted on, but members may not introduceamendments to the bill before committee amendmentshave been considered. An exception to this general ruleoccurs when an amendment in the nature of a substitute

is offered. Members are able to amend the substitutebefore it is considered.

According to the rules of the House and Senate,amendments must be submitted in writing and read aloudbefore the chamber may consider them. A first-degreeamendment is one that changes the text of a bill. Anamendment to an amendment is a second-degree amend-ment. These amendments may add language to a bill,delete language from a bill, or delete and replace languagein a bill. Once an amendment has been approved, thatamendment may not be amended further.

The amending processes in the House and Senate havedifferences. Because of its larger size, the amending pro-cess in the House is more systematic and regulated. Mem-bers of the House offer amendments to each section of abill in sequence. Senators are permitted to offer theiramendments to any part of a bill in any order. Representa-tives are allowed only five minutes each to debate theiramendment. Senators are allowed unlimited time to debateand may filibuster to defeat an amendment they do not like.House amendments must be germane to the bill, or relateto the topic addressed by the piece of legislation. Senaterules apply germaneness in only limited situations.

The House usually considers amendments to legisla-tion after it resolves itself into the COMMITTEE OF THEWHOLE House on the State of the Union. As a committee,it is easier to offer and debate amendments. Bills come tothe floor of the House under rules established by theHOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES to guide the considerationof the bill. The rule typically contains limitations on thenumber and type of amendments that may be offered to apiece of legislation. A closed rule prohibits all floor amend-ments except committee amendments. An open rule allowsany germane amendment to be offered on the floor. A mod-ified rule permits amendments only to specified sectionsof the bill, or allows specific subjects or specific amend-ments. The House must adopt the rule before debate onthe legislation may begin. Senators usually consider legis-lation, including amendments, under unanimous consentagreements.

If both houses pass different versions of the same bill,they must work on amending the bill to make the versionsidentical. After the House passes amendments to a billalready passed in the Senate, or after the Senate passesamendments to a bill passed by the House, the other cham-ber must approve the amendments. If the other chamberdoes not pass the amended bill, a conference committee isconvened to negotiate the differences in the bills.

Further reading:Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek. Congress & ItsMembers. Washington, D.C.: Congressional QuarterlyPress, 2004; Johnson, Charles W. Constitution, Jefferson’s

amending 11

Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives. HouseDocument No. 107-284. Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office, 2003; Riddick, Floyd M., and Alan S. Fru-min. Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices.Senate Document No. 101-28. Washington, D.C.: Govern-ment Printing Office, 1992.

—John David Rausch, Jr.

Anthony RuleNamed after Senator Henry B. Anthony, a Republicanfrom Rhode Island, who proposed the rule, it is a Senatelegislative procedure designed to regularize the process ofmoving pieces of legislation off the Senate CALENDAR.Senator Anthony served from 1859 through 1894. Heintroduced the rule in 1872 to reduce a backlog of billson the Senate calendar. Senate rules before 1869 speci-fied that after the opening MORNING HOUR, the GeneralOrders Calendar should be called. Measures entered onthe calendar first were considered first, but any BILLcould be considered out of turn by a majority vote. Vitalbusiness was entered on the separate and privileged Spe-cial Orders Calendar by a two-thirds majority vote. TheGeneral Orders Calendar did not differentiate betweenpublic and private bills and between those bills that wereunimportant and those that were vital. After the Senatehad spent much time debating the order in which billswould be considered, Anthony proposed a solution. Therule was codified into Rule VII of the Senate rules in1884.

Anthony proposed a straightforward solution. Fromthe close of Morning Hour, usually 12:30, until 1:30, billscould be taken from the General Orders Calendar with therestriction that each senator could speak on the measurefor five minutes or less. If a single senator objected, the leg-islation was returned to the calendar for later considera-tion without limitation on debate. Anthony’s objective wasto have noncontroversial measures be quickly passed ordefeated.

The Anthony Rule remains in effect in the Senate, butit is rarely invoked because of the development of the leg-islative authority of the MAJORITY LEADER. The MajorityLeader decides which items on the calendar will be putbefore the Senate. The automatic call of the calendar isavoided by unanimous consent.

Further reading:Haynes, George H. The Senate of the United States: Its His-tory and Practice. 2 vols. New York: Russell & Russell, 1960;Rothman, David J. Politics and Power: The United StatesSenate 1869–1901. New York: Atheneum, 1969.

—John David Rausch, Jr.

appealWhen the presiding officer rules on a POINT OF ORDER thathas been raised on the floor of either chamber, any repre-sentative or senator is allowed to appeal that ruling. Theappeal is made when the representative or senator formallyquestions the call of the presiding officer. When this appealis made, the full House or the full Senate makes the finaldecision by voting on whether to sustain the ruling of thepresiding officer or to reverse the ruling of the presidingofficer. In sum, appeal is a parliamentary procedure forchallenging the decision of a presiding officer by askingthe members to uphold or reject the decision.

—Nancy S. Lind

appointment powerCongress shares the responsibility for appointing officials inthe U.S. government with the president and the executivebranch. The appointment powers are described in ArticleII, Section II, of the U.S. Constitution, which declares thatthe president

shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent ofthe Senate to . . . appoint Ambassadors, other publicMinisters and Consuls, Judges of the supreme court,and all other Officers of the United States, whoseAppointments are not otherwise herein provided for,and which shall be established by Law: but the Congressmay by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Offi-cers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in theCourts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Article II, Section II, also gives the president the exclusiveauthority to fill vacancies in these governmental positionsduring the times that Congress is in recess and, therefore,unavailable to consent to the president’s selections. Suchappointments expire at the conclusion of the next session ofthe Congress unless the Senate formally approves the pres-ident’s appointee during the session. To date, there hasnever been a serious attempt to amend the Constitution’sappointment provisions.

The framers of the Constitution appear to haveintended the shared appointment power as an internalcheck on the power of both the Congress and the presi-dent. Edited transcripts of the Constitutional Conventionof 1787 demonstrate that the framers did not want to vestthe appointment power wholly in the Congress, whichsome delegates believed would lead to difficulty in reachingagreements about suitable candidates. Nor did the framerswant the president to be fully responsible for selectingjudges, ambassadors, and other public officials becausethey feared that presidents would seek to use such anappointment power to accumulate power. Alexander

12 Anthony Rule

Hamilton appears to be the author of the language in Arti-cle II that resolved the delegates’ dilemma by causing theappointment power to be shared.

Over time the shared appointment process has beenrefined, as Congress sought to identify both expedient andappropriate methods of selecting men and women to workat the highest levels of government. Today Congress andthe president work together on some appointments; the“advice and consent” of the Senate is required for appoint-ments to many federal courts, for appointments of allambassadors, and for the appointments of cabinet secre-taries (heads of executive branch departments), high-levelbureaucrats in some executive branch agencies, and manyquasi-independent regulatory agencies, such as the FederalReserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, and Securitiesand Exchange Commission. In other cases, however, thepresident is given exclusive responsibility for appointingofficials to positions.

The appointment power remains a shared responsibil-ity of the Senate and the president but in recent decadeshas become a source of tension between Congress and thepresident, especially during periods in which members ofopposing parties control the Senate and White House. Forexample, during the 1990s the Senate refused to act onmany nominations submitted by the president, leavingvacancies in federal courthouses and in the executivebranch. During this period senators frequently accusedpresidents of ignoring the “advice” requirement of the“advice and consent” provision in Article II of the Consti-tution and retaliated by withholding their “consent.”

See also ADVICE AND CONSENT.

Further reading:Mackenzie, G. Calvin. The Politics of Presidential Appoint-ments. New York: The Free Press, 1981; Abraham, HenryJ. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A Political History ofAppointments to the Supreme Court. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1996.

—Lauren Bell

apportionment and redistrictingLegislative bodies, whether large or small, are created torepresent a larger body of people. A small town may have acouncil of five members that decides local policies for thepopulation of the place. Such a body may be elected at-large, that is, at election time all the voters may vote to fillall five positions. While such arrangements make sense ina small community for a small number of representatives,more elaborate provisions are required when the electorateis numerous and the number of representatives is large, asin the case of the U.S. Congress. The Congress comprisestwo chambers: the 100-member Senate and the 435-mem-

ber House of Representatives. Apportionment is the pro-cess for assigning the seats, or positions of authority, in therepresentational institution to political entities, in this casethe states.

The apportionment of seats in the U.S. Senate is deter-mined by the historic compromise hammered out inPhiladelphia when the founders wrote the American Con-stitution. The Virginia Plan called for a national legislativebody of two chambers with representation in both accordingto population. A counterproposal from the small states,referred to as the New Jersey plan, sought a single legisla-tive body in which each state would be equally represented.The resulting compromise created a Congress with twochambers. Every state is represented in both chambers. TheSenate apportionment plan provides that each state has twosenators. In the House of Representatives each state has rep-resentation according to population, but each state has atleast one representative. That compromise has endured, andthe Senate’s membership has grown from 26, when therewere 13 states, to 100 members representing 50 states.

Originally the Constitution provided that senators beelected by state legislatures. However, during the PRO-GRESSIVE ERA around the turn of the 20th century, publicsupport grew for the direct election of senators. Congresspassed the SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT to make thatchange in 1912, and it was ratified by the states in 1913.Senators are elected at large with voters from the entirestate electing each member. The six-year terms of the sen-ators are staggered so that under ordinary circumstancesthe two Senate seats in a given state are not up for electionat the same time. Moreover, with congressional electionsoccurring every two years, normally in each state everythird election lacks a Senate contest. However, in the caseof the death or resignation of a senator, the state (typicallythe governor thereof) may appoint a replacement to serveuntil the next election. If any unexpired term remains (twoyears or four years), then an election takes place to fill theposition for the remainder of that term.

Seats in the House of Representatives are apportionedto the states according to population. From the beginningthe Constitution required a CENSUS every 10 years, beg