The Legislative Process

"Listen to advice and accept instruction, and in the end you will be wise." - Proverbs 19:20 (NIV)

I'm performing my public service for the election cycle by helping people understand how the legislative process works at the national level.  Now, before I get what has become the standard response to some of my posts of "What makes you qualified to tell us about this," or "Who made you an authority on this," type of questions (obviously meant as a way to say I don't know any more than you) let me establish my bonafides up front.

First, I have a Bachelor's Degree from Southern Nazarene University in Political Science and a Masters Degree from the University of Central Oklahoma in Political Science.  So from an academic/intellectual perspective, I've been studying this for some time.  Second, I worked for a U.S. Representative for 6 years.  So I have coupled my academic knowledge with actual real-world experience.  Finally, several local institutions of higher education have found my ability to communicate this material to others of such high quality that they have hired me to teach it to their students.  So I hope we can dispense with all the questions/attempts to say I don't know what I'm talking about.  I do.

If you want to understand how the legislative process works, heed the scripture quoted above, and try to put your preconceptions behind you.

Congress is divided into two separate chambers:  The House of Representatives and the Senate.  While these two bodies combined form "Congress" they are distinct institutions that have their own rules, their own calendars, their own requirements, and their own agendas.  Neither chamber is required to review legislation passed by the other.  Legislation often dies this way, especially in an environment like the current one, where each chamber is controlled by a different party.  But it happens when one party controls both institutions as well (the demise of many provisions of the "Contract with America" advanced by House Republicans is an example of this).

The House of Representatives is comprised of 435 members divided among the 50 states based on population.  These members serve two-year terms.  After each census, reapportionment occurs.  This is where the 435 seats may be re-distributed among the states should population growth/shifts require it.  The individual state governments are required to draw the districts (geographical boundaries) of each House District in their state.  Individuals running for the House of Representatives are required to live in the state for which they are running (i.e., you can't live in Oklahoma and run for Congress in Florida).  However, you do not have to live in the House district for which you are running (although as a practical matter, it's difficult to win if you don't live in the district).

The Senate is comprised of 100 members, with every state having an equal number - 2.  While each senator is elected to a 6-year term, they are set on a rotating basis, where only 1/3 of the senate is elected every two years.  This is unlike the House of Representatives, where the entire membership is elected every two years.  Senators are not bound to geographic districts within the states, like House members.  They both represent the entire state.  Because the Constitution requires equal representation in the senate, senators are not affected by the census and there is no reapportionment.  Like house members, an individual running for the senate must live in the state for which they are running.

The House of Representatives was designed to be very sensitive and responsive to the "passions" running through society.  Because House members are elected so frequently, they must have a strong connection to the people in their individual districts.  Because of this sensitivity to political movements among voters, the majority party in the House has the ability to move legislation through that institution with little resistance from the minority party.  Not only does the majority party have it's nominee elected as Speaker of the House, but it also controls all the committee and subcommittee chairmanships - which means it has control of the legislative process in the House.  The majority party does not have to be responsive to the minority party's concerns, complaints, or wishes. 

The Senate was designed to be more detached from the same political passions that so affect the House of Representatives.  Because senators have longer terms, and because they were not originally elected directly by the people, they could afford to examine proposed laws from a more "objective" view (so was the theory).  However, with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, senators did become more affected by the political winds.  But the length of their terms still provide some insulation, as compared to their counterparts in the House.  Because the Senate was expected to be more detached, it developed rules that allow the minority party greater power to slow down the legislative process.  I'll discuss these in more detail below.

Both the House and the Senate are divided into committees.  Here are two links where you can access information about specific committees in each chamber:  http://www.house.gov/committees/ and http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm

As I indicated earlier, the majority party in both chambers controls the chairmanships of their committees.  This gives the majority party great power in determining what bills will actually be voted on in each chamber.  Committee chairs have virtually complete control of the process within their committees, and most bills die in committee.  In the House, the Speaker has tremendous power in the legislative process.  The Speaker approves committee chairmanships, committee assignments, and directs which committee(s) proposed legislation will be directed.  The Senate has no single individual with the same amount of power as the Speaker of the House.  The majority leader of the senate is much less able to control the legislative process than the Speaker can in the House.

Within the committees and their subcommittees, the real work of writing legislation begins.  Hearings may be held.  But such hearings are rarely "fact finding" exercises.  They simply allow the majority party (and sometimes the minority party) the opportunity to provide "witnesses" stating why they oppose or support specific proposals.  And remember, especially in the House, only that legislation which is supported by the majority party will be passed out of committee. 

In the House, once a bill has been reported out of a committee (received a majority of "yea" votes by the committee members), it goes to the Rules Committee, where the terms of debate are created.  These terms include the length of debate on the measure as well as whether or not amendments will be allowed.  Once the House has approved the Rule on a bill, it will be debated and voted upon.  But remember, at every stage of the process, the majority party has complete control of the process.  In the House, the minority party can make a lot of noise, but they can't really prevent anything from passing, or required the majority party to address their concerns.

In the Senate, the minority party has much more power to demand the majority party listen and address its concerns.  The senate has the rule of "unlimited debate."  So discussion of a proposal can go on indefinitely.  In order to stop debate, the senate must take a cloture vote.  To successfully enact cloture 60 senators must vote to do so.  In a period in which neither party has 60 senators, achieving cloture on the most controversial measures can become very difficult.  Unlimited debate allows senators to filibuster a bill - in effect to talk it to death.  Since the senate does not have a rules committee like the House, it utilizes unanimous consent agreements to set the parameters of debate for proposed laws.  However, a senator can prevent "unanimous consent" by placing a hold on the legislation.  The one measure that is specifically not subject to a filibuster in the Senate is the budget reconciliation legislation passed by Congress.  The Budget Act of 1974 specifically exempts reconciliation measures from filibuster attempts by only requiring 51 votes to pass (Senate Democrats used reconciliation to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since they could not produce 60 votes for cloture).

If the House and Senate produce differing versions of the same legislation, a conference committee is created which has members of both chambers and is designed to reconcile the differences.  Once a conference committee has completed its work, the measure is scheduled for a straight up or down vote in both chambers. 

Once legislation has been passed by both chambers, it proceeds to the President where it will be signed or vetoed.

Some important things to take away from this.  The majority party, in both chambers has control of the process.  In the House, it's almost complete.  In the Senate, that control is not as complete, but the majority party still gets its way, generally.

Also, when a party has a slim majority in either chamber, it gives factions within that party much more power to demand concessions from its leadership.  This means, especially on controversial legislation, it is usually the majority having to make agreements with individual or groups of members within its party to pass legislation more often than having to reach compromise with the minority party.  Again, this is particularly true in the House.

In addition, don't confuse legislative "debate" with actual persuasion.  Debate in either chamber is not about trying to convince anyone that they should change their position.  Debate in Congress is more about individual Representatives and Senators being able to make small speeches about legislation so they can ensure their constituents know where they stand on proposed laws.

Also, realize that most proposed laws never get past the committee stage.  Perhaps 1 in 10 proposals are reported out of committees for a full vote by either chamber.  Given that the majority party in each chamber controls committees, it is not surprising that the legislation that party desires is what is approved.

Finally, let go of the notion that their is much in the way of "cooperation" between the majority and minority parties in Congress.  First, they aren't elected with an expectation of cooperation.  In other words, people don't elect a Republican to go to Congress and start voting with Democrats, or vice versa.  They expect legislators to vote in a manner that is consistent with their party labels.  Second, the majority party holds almost all the cards at the legislative table.  It rarely, if ever, needs the cooperation of the minority party to pass anything.  It can, and has "steamrolled" the minority party on legislation for a long time.

I hope this has been helpful in understanding how the institution of Congress actually produces laws.  I'll admit, it's a basic introduction, but it should give you a good overview of what happens in Congress.

In Support of Kyle Loveless

Kyle Loveless is a good friend of mine who will take office as a State Senator in December.  Kyle and I got our starts in politics and government together on the staff of then-Congressman Ernest Istook back in the 1990s.  We've had the opportunity to work on a variety of projects and campaigns together over the years, as well as play some basketball, too.

This evening, Governor Mary Fallin will host a reception for Kyle at the Chesapeake Boathouse (725 S. Lincoln Blvd.).  I want to encourage you to take a few minutes from your evening and get to know Kyle.  I believe he's going to make an exceptional legislator.

Let me offer you a few brief reasons why I believe you should not only visit with Kyle, but support him as well.

• Kyle is a person you can trust - He is hard working, dedicated, and straightforward.  He may not always agree with you, but he'll never cause you to doubt his integrity.
• Kyle is invested in our community - His family has built a business over several generations.  They have established a reputation for exceptional work and service both locally, and nationally.  Kyle wants to see our state continue to grow and prosper.
• Kyle won't be learning on the job - Because of his experience, Kyle will be able to establish himself as a leader in the State Senate.  He'll be an effective legislator from day one.
• Kyle is eager to hear from you - Kyle wants input from his fellow citizens.  He knows that great ideas are often created from outside the state capitol.  He wants to hear from you about the issues you believe are important and the solutions you believe will work.

So I hope you will take a few minutes from your evening and join Governor Fallin in congratulating Kyle on his election to the State Senate.  I know he'll enjoy the opportunity to visit with you.

I hope to see you there.

You can learn more about Kyle and the event this evening at http://kyleloveless.com/

What I like about John Roberts' Ruling

Like most conservatives/libertarians, I would have wished the Court had firmly and undeniably squashed the individual mandate portion of the health care reform legislation passed by Democrats in 2010.  But I have found quite a bit to like from Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion.

First, the Court firmly stated that legislation such as this could not be brought forward under the guise of the Commerce Clause.  While the Court has allowed Congress broad leeway in using that portion of the Constitution to increase its regulatory powers, it drew a line in the sand on the ability to compel individuals to participate in commerce.  That's a good victory for those who would like Constitutional limits to be something more than historical footnotes.

Second, they also eschewed the notion that the Necessary & Proper clause could, on it's own allow Congress to compel individual action such as is required under the new law.  Again, the Court (and Justice Roberts) clearly articulated a conservative view on this point.

Unfortunately, Justice Roberts left the "conservative" perspective when upholding the individual mandate as a part of Congress' taxing powers.  But did he really abandon the conservative cause on this issue?  While the outcome was one no conservative really supports, Robert's reasoning can be substantiated through a conservative line of thought.

Robert's most effective point in supporting upholding the mandate as a "tax" is that we already use the tax code to reward or punish individual behavior.  I won't go through an exhaustive list, but the most obvious is the tax reward for purchasing a home.  By allowing home owners to deduct the interest on their mortgage, the government punishes non-home owners by requiring them to pay higher taxes. 

Since most conservatives believe home ownership is a "good" thing, they haven't minded this, or many other such utilization of the tax code.  But if we allow that the tax code can be used to reward or punish individual behavior, then whatever behavior Congress determines as desirable can be rewarded - and whatever it deems undesirable can be punished.  I hate to use the "slippery slope" moniker, but...

Another strong point from Robert's opinion was a very simple one:  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.  This "penalty" as the Obama Administration refers to it, is collected by the IRS via the normal income tax process, and enforcement of it comes through the IRS as well.  Despite what the President and his supporters want to argue, this is, and always has been, a tax.  Roberts simply confirmed what conservatives and others had been arguing since the legislation was introduced in Congress.

However, something happened between the oral arguments before the court and it's final ruling.  Conservatives were stunned when Roberts took a truly conservative stance.  A little acknowledged part of Robert's opinion explains that the Court has an affirmative obligation to sustain the constitutionality of legislation, if it can be done in a reasonable manner.  Roberts cited precedent in previous Supreme Court rulings to support this perspective and, to my knowledge, no one has stepped forward to challenge it.

So if it's accepted practice to use the tax code to reward or punish individual behavior, and if this "mandate" is indeed a tax, then Robert's reasoning makes sense, even if it creates a result I, or my fellow conservatives, oppose.

But here's what I really like about the ruling.  It will force conservatives to rethink this habit of utilizing the tax code for "behavior modification."  If they are at all serious about personal liberty, it should also compel conservatives to rethink the income tax entirely.  And not just changing from our current system to a "flat" tax.  But repealing the 16th Amendment and eliminating the thing completely. 

Will this happen?  I don't know.  But, if those who hold themselves out as conservative leaders have any intellectual integrity at all, they will take Robert's ruling as the cue to free our nation from the most insidious form of government financing developed.  If they do, Robert's opinion will become the catalyst for the single greatest freedom enhancing action in my lifetime.

Primary elections coming this Tuesday!

Oklahoma will hold primary elections on Tuesday, June 26th.  If you are a first-time voter, or haven't voted in a while, I encourage you to make the trip to the polls on election day.  Primary elections are where voters within each party (primarily the Republican and Democrat parties) choose their nominees for a variety of elected offices.  The winners will represent their respective parties in the general election which is held on the first Tuesday (following the first Monday) in November.

Participation in primary elections is much less than in the general election.  So, if you do vote, it carries more weight in these elections.  Usually, only about 25% - 35% of eligible voters will participate in these elections.  So, those who actually show up and vote will have a disproportionate share of influence in selecting their party's candidates for office.

I have the good fortune to know a few individuals up for election this Tuesday.  Here are my thoughts on their races:

• Kyle Loveless - Kyle is a long-time friend of mine.  We worked on the staff of former Congressman Ernest Istook together many years ago.  Kyle actually doesn't have a primary or general election.  He has developed such a strong reputation in his district that not a single individual (Republican or Democrat) chose to challenge him for election.  This is a first for an open State Senate seat in Oklahoma.  Even though he doesn't have an election, Kyle can still use your support.  He is having a fundraiser (hosted by Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb) in July, and I hope you will support Kyle.
• Brian Maughan - Brian is another long-time friend.  We have actually campaigned against each other and for each other.  Brian has worked tirelessly over many years to create a better community for those who live in S. OKC.  He was elected to the Board of County Commissioners for OK County four years ago and has done an excellent job.  Brian is especially proud of his S.H.I.N.E. program which has helped create a more attractive community while also lessening the burden on our county jail.  He has also done a great job of maintaining or repairing the roads and bridges in his district.  While I want to keep this mostly positive about Brian, I do want to say that I am very disappointed that his opponent is either quite misinformed about the issues, or he has chosen to mislead the public about Brian's record.  If you live in District 2 of Oklahoma County, I encourage you to re-elect Brian Maughan.
• Clark Jolley/Paul Blair - I have met both of these individuals, but must admit I am more familiar, and have more mutual friends with Clark Jolley.  The question here is do voters in this Edmond Senate District believe Jolley has effectively represented them?  It is unfortunate that both sides have apparently devolved into distorting reality about the other candidate to some extent.  As far as I can tell, both are good men doing what they believe is best for their community and state.  So it is doubly disappointing that both candidates have resorted to negative campaigning on issues of little significance.  I hope voters will make an informed choice and ignore the name-calling.
• Charles Key/Tim Rhodes - There are actually two other candidates in this race, but I have heard from neither of them, and believe it will come down to the two I have mentioned.  This is for Oklahoma County Court Clerk - a position that probably should be appointed rather than elected.  Having said that, this race is between an insider - Tim Rhodes - who has the support of most of the other County elected officials, and an outsider - Charles Key - who is a retiring State Representative.  It's becoming apparent that state legislators are cluing in that if they can't move up (getting elected to statewide office) then the county isn't a bad alternative.  In some cases, county officials make more than statewide elected officials, and they have less headaches.  Rhodes has been in the Court Clerk's office for many years and no doubt understands how it operates.  When I worked in OK County, Tim was always professional, courteous, and knowledgeable.  I can't say the same about Charles Key - at least when it comes to this position.  He seems to lack a basic understanding of the operations of county government, and he seems to focus on issues not directly related to the office.  While I don't expect Tim to act in an independent manner (from the majority of other county officials), and I certainly don't expect him to "shake things up," this seems to be what the public actually prefers in their county officers.  I'll probably be voting for Tim, too.

These are the four races I'm giving my attention to the most.  Not that my opinion carries that much importance, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

What to Make of the Trayvon Martin Case

Lost in all the controversy over the Trayvon Martin case is that a young black man was killed.  His life ended prematurely, and we should all grieve for that.  Just as we should all grieve for the thousands of young lives lost each year.  But Martin's case has other aspects that keep it in front of the public eye. 

Many have alleged that the killing was racially motivated.  Others have alleged that Martin initiated the confrontation that led to his shooting, and that George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.  And it's clear that media outlets, and pundits on the left and right have chosen to make this issue about politics, rather than about the tragic death of a young man.

From my own brief review of the case, it would seem that those seeking "justice" for Martin have one very good point - at the very least, Zimmerman should have been detained and an investigation fully conducted.  I understand the constraints that law enforcement must work under - and spent a day explaining them to a group of students.  However, there is no dispute that Zimmerman shot Martin.  Holding Zimmerman for the allowable amount of time, while investigating the shooting would seem to be warranted.  I'm sure it would have helped ease the public's mind regarding law enforcement's seriousness towards this case.

But those seeking "justice" need to be prepared that this situation will be all the more tragic because justice will not be found.  This case is very similar to that of pharmacist Jerome Ersland here in Oklahoma.  Many jumped aboard Ersland's defense when news of his situation first came out.  Ersland was seen as a sympathetic victim who decided to protect himself from criminals.  As Ersland's trial progressed, it became clear, there were no "good guys" in that situation.  Ersland lost claim to that title once he decided to return and repeatedly shoot one of his robbers after he was already wounded and no longer a threat.

This may again be a case in which there are no "good guys."  Is Zimmerman a racist?  I don't know.  If so, his reason for suspecting Martin loses credibility.  Did Martin actually initiate the confrontation that led to his shooting?  I don't know that either.  If so, he, and his supporters, can not escape the fact that his own actions are, in part, responsible for what happened.  No good guys, and, perhaps, no bad guys.  Just guys caught up in circumstances that led to a tragic end.

The more significant problem with this case is the blatant attempt by media outlets, politicians, and pundits to create a narrative of this story, rather than simply explaining what happened.  Some, on the right and the left, have a vested interest in creating division where none should exist.  And some seem to be more concerned with the political aspects of the case, rather than the human aspects.

Passions run high, and people are quickly jumping to one side or the other.  However, as I told my class today, let's be slow to take a side.  Let this situation play out and see what eventually happens.  Whether or not Zimmerman is arrested and/or prosecuted, we all have an interest in ensuring a full explanation of the decision is provided.  Let's allow time to help reveal more of the truth of this situation, and quit trying (or allowing others) to create their own "truth" about it.  Both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman deserve that.  Justice will only come if people on both sides will resist the urge to accuse, blame, and demonize the others.

Sadly, this looks like another case where "justice" will be elusive, and we will not have a satisfactory ending to the story.  No good guys, no bad guys...just guys caught up in bad circumstances...Law enforcement can minimize this situation by going out of its way to ensure the public it is acting appropriately and taking this case seriously.

I'm Back...!

This blog has been on hiatus for a few months while I decided what I want to do with it.  I've decided to make it a bit more personal - writing about the things that genuinely interest me.  So, it will include a lot of posts about my family - especially my kids, as well as my thoughts on current events & politics, things relating to my business or profession, and occasionally, maybe even some sports related posts (not many though) as I'm more of a casual sports fan.

I've started teaching at the college level again and I teach two American Federal Government classes.  We are currently discussing the Declaration of Independence.  If you haven't read it in a while, get a copy and refresh your memory on why this is a truly amazing document.  As someone who is very interested in the period of the American Revolution and creation of the Constitution, I think it is nothing short of a miracle that the Declaration and Constitutions were created. 

The issues facing that generation were far more momentous than our current political issues.  And the various sources of division were no less heated.  The ability of these individuals to find ways around their differences and to create the foundation for what would be come the greatest nation on the face of the earth is more than a little remarkable.

Let's examine the most well-known passage of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." - Truths, not ideas, or principles, or concepts.  Truths.  Unassailable, unfaltering, unchanged by time or circumstance.  And they are so true as to be obvious.  They don't need to be discovered.  They are not hidden.

"...that all men are created equal..." - Not equal in possessions or ability.  The notion that men are or could be rendered absolutely equal is contrary to reality.  But we are equal in the rights we possess.  How we utilize those rights, what we become as a result of them, is dependent on us as individuals.  But we all have them.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." - Some will have an issue with the notion expressed here that the source of these rights are from a higher power.  While I personally believe this, let's avoid the spiritual discussion for now and focus on the political consequences of the idea that these rights are not the creation of governments or civil law, nor are they merely man-made constructs.  Their existence predates government and supersedes civil authority.  More importantly, they are as much a part of each individual as their eyes, nose, hair, or limbs.

"...that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." - The three basic rights from which all others spring.

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - The purpose of government is to protect the rights we possess.  And legitimate forms of government recognize and respect that they are the property of the people, not vice versa.

"...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..." - When government no longer protects these rights, we have the right (in another passage the Declaration states we have a "duty") to change it.

The value and relevance of this document is seen the the inspiration it has been for people not only in our country, but across the world.  Peoples all over the globe have quoted it as the source for their own fight for liberty.  That the principles in this document are not fully recognized here or in other nations is a reality we must contend with.  But the great history of our country is the continuous progress we have made towards extending the ideal to more and more people.

Side note:  If you haven't seen the mini-series John Adams (based on the book of the same name), I highly recommend it.  You'll learn a lot about the process that lead to the creation of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the struggle for American Independence.