Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian,
U.S. House of Representatives
Colin Powell, former Secretary of State
and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
SONNY’S SUMMARY
Committees and subcommittees are like “little legislatures” because they take the lead in drafting laws in their areas of responsibility, such as veterans’ affairs, armed services, international relations, judiciary, education/the workforce, and small business. When the subcommittee first—and then the full committee, second—approves a bill, the Committee sends it to the full body (House or Senate) for consideration. The subcommittee and committee of jurisdiction then remain very much involved in resolving differences in House- and Senate-passed bills. My approach as a committee chairman was not to take a bill to the House floor for a vote unless it had bipartisan support, meaning from both Republican and Democratic members of the committee. Bipartisanship produces mutual ownership, and I think often yields a better work product.
Mr. Montgomery
Before we track the seven-year legislative journey of what became known as the Montgomery GI Bill, let’s talk about Congressional committees and their membership.
In describing committees, we’ll use and describe many terms or phrases. These include: “little legislatures,” “legislative widgets,” committee mark-up, committee report, reporting a bill, “Budget Act,” annual budget resolution, mandatory (versus discretionary) spending, budget reconciliation, legislative whip, floor consideration, floor manager, suspension of the rules, vote stations, House-Senate conference committee, conference report, Joint Explanatory Statement, “four corners,” enrolled bill, partisan, bipartisan, and “followership.”
Committees are important.
Individual committees in the House and Senate typically cover about the same topics, including armed services, veterans’ affairs, homeland security, international relations, small business, education and the workforce, judiciary, and transportation. These committees generally take the lead in writing laws involving their subject-matter areas.
In my experience, members of the House understandably would try to serve on a committee of importance to their constituents. Each member of the House typically serves on three committees. However, if a member serves on the Appropriations Committee, that’s his or her sole committee assignment. Appropriating money to fund government agencies and public programs is serious business.
What committee to serve on?
If a member has military bases in his or her Congressional district, the member may want to serve on the Armed Services Committee.
If a member represents a farming district, constituent interests might best be served on the Agriculture Committee.
If a member represents a highly developed area where traffic density is an issue, the member may wish to request a seat from his or her party’s leadership on the Transportation Committee.
If a member represents a more rural area, the member may wish to sit on the Natural Resources Committee.
Each committee and subcommittee has both a “chairman,” who is the presiding officer, and a “ranking member.” The “chairman” is a member of the majority political party; that is, the party of the House or Senate that has the most elected members. The majority party has slightly more members on a committee, so it has more votes. The majority party “controls” the House or Senate and largely sets the legislative agenda.1
The ranking member of the committee comes from the party in the House or Senate that is in the minority, meaning the political party that has fewer elected members. The minority party has slightly fewer members on a committee and thus has fewer votes.
When I served in the House, the Democratic Party was in the majority, and the Republican Party was in the minority.
But I didn’t give a lick about a member’s party affiliation. I felt I needed to work with members of both parties to be able to get anything done.
Have you heard the saying about when you have to carry out a daunting-type assignment? “When one’s job is to ‘eat the elephant,’ we divide it up into ‘steak-sized portions!’”2
Committees represent the “steak-sized” portions; and committees make the portions “bite-sized” by dividing the committee’s work even further—and assigning it to subcommittees.
Committees and subcommittees are like “little legislatures” unto themselves because committees are where the “heavy lifting” occurs. It’s where members of the committee, aided by the staff who are subject-matter experts, conceptualize, draft, think-through, revise, perfect, and mark-up (meaning vote on and approve) legislation.
In carrying out their work, prior to holding formal public hearings on planned legislation, committee and subcommittee staff members sometimes have informal work sessions with organizations—inside and outside of government—that are interested in the legislation.
Staff also obtain written cost estimates for a bill over one, five, and ten years from the Congressional Budget Office, which by law provides “nonpartisan budgetary information and analysis to Congress and its committees.”3
Cost estimates are important because Congress uses the estimates to comply with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974 (also known as the Budget Act or Congressional Budget Act). Among other things, this act established the basic procedures of the annual Congressional budget process in regard to anticipated revenues and expenditures for programs and services administered by the U.S. government.
Said another way, the budget process “consists of procedures for coordinating Congressional revenue and spending decisions made in separate tax, appropriations, and legislative measures”4 (including our New GI Bill/Montgomery GI Bill legislation). I might add that CBO cost estimates are one of the “legislative widgets” produced in writing a law that we’ll discuss shortly.
A main committee vehicle in the annual Congressional budget process is the “budget resolution5—a concurrent [meaning House and Senate] resolution in which Congress establishes or revises its version of the federal budget’s broad financial features for the upcoming fiscal year and several additional fiscal years. Like other concurrent resolutions, it does not have the force of law, but it provides the framework within which Congress subsequently considers revenue, spending, and other budget-implementing legislation…. Congress should complete action on the first resolution by April 15 of each year.”
Students, the House—especially through its Veterans’ Affairs and Rules Committees—discusses the budget resolution and paying for a New GI Bill entitlement in Chapter 6, and the Senate through its Veterans’ Affairs and Budget Committees, in Chapters 8 and 9.
“Mandatory spending” means “amounts that Congress must appropriate because it has no discretion over it….”6 Entitlements such as Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, military and federal civilian retirement benefits, and Medicare are good examples of mandatory spending.7 Entitlements are drafted through committees. Chapters 8 and 9, too, discuss budget implications of mandatory spending.
Budget reconciliation is a “procedure for changing existing revenue and spending laws to bring total federal revenues and spending within the limits established in a budget resolution.”8 We give reconciliation lots of discussion in Chapter 15. The visual on this page—How Does A Bill Become A Law—shows the basic role committees play in the larger context of how a bill travels the legislative road.9
As you can see from the preceding visual, bills are introduced in the House or Senate. The Parliamentarian then refers the bill to a committee (or committees) that holds hearings on it. A bill is also sometimes known as a legislative “measure.”
Any member of the House or Senate can introduce a bill on any topic. But I think it’s accurate to say that bills introduced by a member of the committee of jurisdiction often receive the more favorable consideration. Why so? It’s because expertise on an issue tends to reside within the committee that has jurisdiction over it. (The Parliamentarian, among other duties, has the responsibility of assigning—or “referring”—bills to committees, based on the bill’s subject matter.)
The bill itself—and the introductory statement that accompanies it—represents the first of many “legislative widgets” that Congress produces to write laws. As I see it, a “legislative widget” is any written work product associated with a writing law.10
Why do I call them “widgets?”
All the widgets fit together to form the legislative product, which is a law. The widgets collectively create the “legislative history” of the law, meaning all the legislative events, debates, and analyses that led to enacting it.
This collection of legislative history—including the body of stakeholder testimony from public hearings—is largely the basis for determining legislative “intent.”
To me, Congressional “intent” is what Congress had in mind when writing a law—what Congress wanted to achieve. The federal agency responsible for administering a given law—or the courts in the event that a dispute arises concerning the law’s meaning or intent—often consult this history.
Committees often “amend,” meaning revise a bill prior to “reporting” the bill. “Reporting” means voting on the bill and writing a report on it to send it for a vote to the full House or Senate. “Committee mark-up” means a committee meets on a bill and votes on it prior to “reporting” it to the full House or Senate.
In reporting a bill to the House or Senate so that the body can vote, the committee authoring it first must publish and file a committee report that it makes available electronically (or in hard copy) to every member of the House or Senate. Would a committee report be a “legislative widget?” Yes indeed!
In general, a committee report will include a bill summary; background on the bill; explanation of the provisions in the bill and the basis for them; cost estimates; and the views of the federal agency or department that would carry out the legislation. The views of external organizations that have testified on the bill generally are not included in the committee report but appear verbatim in the committee’s published record of the hearing. However, in some cases, a committee report on a bill will cite the verbatim testimony of external “stakeholders” in the report, especially when the testimony supports the committee’s proposed legislation.
Next, the House (or Senate) leadership schedules the bill for “floor consideration,” including debate, possible amendments, and voting. The person who mobilizes members to cast votes consistent with legislative priorities for the majority and minority parties is the Senator or Representative who is the legislative “whip.” Whips are elected by the members of their party. The whip also helps decide which bill is brought to the floor for a vote, and when.11 This occurs through a “whip notice.”12
To arrange “floor consideration,” the chairman and ranking member of the authoring committee separately consult with House leadership of their respective parties, through the whip’s office. Party leadership then schedules a date to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. The committee chairman and ranking member usually serve as the bill’s “floor managers” for their respective parties.
The Speaker’s Rostrum, U.S. House of Representatives, as it appeared in 2007.
The respective floor managers serve as chief spokespersons for the bill and decide who will speak on the bill during floor consideration/debate prior to the vote. (In the House of Representatives, the member presiding over debate sits in the Speaker’s chair and is addressed as “Mr. or Madam Speaker.” In the Senate, he or she is addressed as “Mr. President or Madam President.”)
The bill may be amended on the floor with a two-thirds vote. But I preferred to work with the minority side of our committee to agree to the parliamentary option of “suspending” the operation of the regular rules regarding floor debate. By doing so, the House simply could debate and vote on the bill itself—with no amendments. In other words, no amendments would be permitted during floor consideration, and the bill would either pass or fail, exactly as it emerged from the committee.
Under “suspension,” the idea was simply to vote on and pass the bill because the majority and minority sides of the committee bringing the bill to the floor wrote it together and agreed to its contents. 13
I respected the viewpoints of the speaker and the majority leader. But as a committee chairman, I didn’t think it was helpful for a Veterans’ Affairs Committee bill to have floor amendments added to it when we had worked in such a bipartisan way in committee to get the bill right the first time.
With 435 members of the House, how do members vote on the House floor? There are many ways, but the booklet How Our Laws Are Made tells us that under modern practices that went into effect on January 23, 1973, recorded and roll call votes are usually taken by an electronic device.
In the House, members use an electronic voting “station.” Let’s have my good friend Charles W. Johnson, who served with distinction for 40 years in the office of Parliamentarian, U.S. House of Representatives, explain:14
A typical electronic voting station as used in the House.
Mr. Johnson
“A number of ‘vote stations’ are attached to selected chairs in the [House] chamber. Each station is equipped with a vote-card slot and four indicators, marked ‘yea,’ ‘nay,’ ‘present,’ and ‘open’ that are lit when a vote is in progress and the system is ready to accept votes.
Charles W. Johnson
“Each member is provided with an encrypted vote-ID card. A member votes by inserting the voting card into any one of the vote stations and depressing the appropriate button to indicate the member’s choice…. The machine records the votes and reports the result when the vote is completed. In the Senate, votes are taken by roll call.”
Mr. Montgomery
Let’s assume now the House and Senate have passed separate bills addressing the same issue; examples could include Social Security reform, minimum wage increase, immigration policy reform, or student financial aid policy. What happens now?
As our earlier visual illustrates, either (1) the House or the Senate can agree to the other body’s version or (2) House and Senate members are appointed to a “conference committee,” a temporary committee made up of House and Senate members who are known as “conferees.” Conferees meet “for the purpose of reconciling differences in legislation that has passed both chambers.”15
When the conference committee comes to agreement, it issues a “conference report” that reflects the negotiated agreement or “compromise” on the bill. Is a conference report a “legislative widget?” Sure, because it explains the outcome of the House-Senate conference toward writing a law.
There can also be a House-Senate “joint explanatory statement” that describes in detail the respective House- and Senate-passed provisions and the compromise agreement on each. An explanatory statement is another “widget” that helps complete the legislative picture.
In some respects, the Veterans’ Affairs Committees of the House and Senate, members of the staff of the majority and minority side of both committees used procedures that were somewhat different than those used by others. They often negotiated a “compromise agreement,” in lieu of a formal conference committee.
Some observers view the compromise agreement approved as a “phantom conference”16 because committee professional staff—not members—negotiate based on member guidance so as to ultimately bring a proposed compromise to members for a vote.
Indeed, the role of Mr. Mack Fleming, our highly effective House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chief Counsel and Staff Director, is discussed in compromise agreement negotiation in the book Unelected Representatives: Congressional Staff and the Future of Representative Government, by author Michael Malbin.
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Olin Teague of Texas and then-Chairman Ray Roberts, both of Texas, preferred that staff directors and other professional staff of the House and Senate committees resolve legislative differences.17
Noted Chief Counsel Fleming, “I can’t remember but one formal conference being held since 1973, when I came here.”18
Observed Chairman Teague, “[I]t’s just quicker and easier without a whole lot of people.”19
Usually after multiple staff negotiating sessions, committee staff would submit the proposed compromise agreement—including the associated legislative language—to each of the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. If the four parties agreed with the proposed compromise, each body would vote on the written compromise agreement, as expressed in the form of a joint explanatory statement, known as a “JES”20 —rather than convening a formal conference committee. The JES is another “widget” that helps produce a law. It’s “joint” because both the House and the Senate issue the official statement, as drafted by committee staff.21
In the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, we sometimes call this negotiating process the “four corners” because the majority and minority sides of both the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee participate. Each side has one vote.
Though not a formal rule but more an informal agreement, if any one of the “four corners” objects to a provision, it will not be part of the negotiated agreement—period. Writing public policy for the United States is important business. Three of four “corners” supporting a provision are insufficient to write it into the proposed compromise. It has to be unanimous. Four out of four sends the provision to the White House, assuming the full House and Senate pass the negotiated package crafted by the two Veterans’ Affairs Committees.
Finally, the President receives the “enrolled bill” printed on parchment paper, as signed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. As our earlier chart indicates, the President can then either sign or veto the bill.
As I mentioned, I felt it important that the Veterans’ Affairs Committee operate in a bipartisan fashion.
It seems to me that being politically “partisan” is easy because the majority party has more members/votes on a committee and pretty much can push through whatever it wants.
However, being “bipartisan” and truly listening to the views of the minority party takes work; work in the form of time, effort, and earnest commitment.
In my opinion, bipartisanship not only produces “ownership” of the legislation, but also often yields a more thoughtful product.
I believe, too, it is more important to be a powerful listener than a powerful speaker.
Each member of Congress today represents about 647,000 persons.22 That’s a crowd, isn’t it? My biggest job as both a Representative from Mississippi’s Third Congressional District and a Committee Chairman was to listen to both the descriptions of problems and the ideas for resolving them.
If one isn’t willing to listen to the legislative views of others, it’s hard to ask a constituent or a member of the committee to ultimately accept one’s own legislative ideas. Beyond “hard,” I’d also call it disrespectful.
A fair amount of the technical design of the Montgomery GI Bill, for example, emerged from others with technical knowledge and information that my elected colleagues and I did not possess.
These included ideas from professional staff of the Veterans’ Affairs and Armed Services Committees, managers of veterans’ educational assistance programs at the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense, and professional staff from national veterans, military personnel, and higher education organizations. Listening is learning. Without it, informed decision making is much harder.
LIKE MAKING SAUSAGE
Folks, there are many everyday phrases to describe the legislative process. Now is a good time for me to alert you to them because you’ll see examples of them in the pages ahead.
One common metaphor regarding the legislative process goes something like this: “[W]riting a law is like making sausage: you’ll like the end-product but you won’t necessarily want to see how it’s made (or what goes into making it!).”23
I think it is fair to say you’ll see in our case study that writing the Montgomery GI Bill was at times a messy process. It was a process that contained a lot of different “ingredients” and involved a lot of different “cooks.”
Those ingredients didn’t always mix well. Finding the right legislative “recipe” can be challenging.
And the recipe all will find appetizing doesn’t always emerge quickly! At times, the legislative process can be slower than a snail on crutches.24
Most laws do not take seven years to write like the Montgomery GI Bill did.
Getting a majority of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives to agree on something takes hard work. And it should take work. Ideally, only bills that are carefully thought through should receive majority support based on the bill’s merit.
Folks, let’s summarize a bit. In this chapter, we’ve talked about the importance of committees and the steps committees take to produce what I have referred to as “legislative widgets” to produce laws.
We’ve also talked about voting by “credit card,” the “four corners,” and the value of bipartisanship.
Before we move to 1980 when my colleagues and I began a legislative journey that led to Congress creating the Montgomery GI Bill in 1987, I want to talk about the concept of leadership.
Legislative leadership employed in writing laws is not different from leadership in other settings; one must develop a “followership” through one’s depth of knowledge, one’s character as a person, and one’s professionalism in dealing with others, especially as a listener.
Momentarily, I’ll share with you some words about leadership from Colin Powell, a soldier, statesman, and American icon.
Colin Powell visiting U.S. troops.
Colin Powell is a leader, having served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, under both President George H. W. Bush and President Bill Clinton.
Secretary Powell is one of the most respected persons in America and he’s a person I admire.
Secretary Powell now serves as chairman of “America’s Promise,” an organization challenging Americans to scale up their investment in youth and commitment to making America’s youth a national priority.
Secretary Powell wrote a masterful article in the February 2002 issue of State Magazine titled “What’s the True Secret of Good Leadership? There is None.” I’ve included this article in the appendix for you. I believe you can apply its lessons in every aspect of your life.
I am very honored to have Secretary Powell with us. I’ve asked the Secretary to share with you what I think is an important paragraph from his article.
Mr. Powell
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
“Dare to be the skunk at the picnic. Every organization should tolerate rebels who tell the emperor he has no clothes. This is not a license to be mean or rude. But make the tough decisions, confront people who need it, reward those who perform best. Speak your mind. Work toward consensus building but don’t hide from reality.”25
Mr. Montgomery
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
In a sense, at times my colleagues and I were “the skunks at the picnic,” because I believe we spoke with candor regarding the need for a new, “non-contributory” GI Bill.
In 1980, we had to emphatically suggest to the Congress something much more than the lone fact that our post-Vietnam, all-volunteer military concept wasn’t working.
We suggested that spending additional money on military hardware wasn’t necessarily the sole answer. We felt the answer was spending more money on people to operate that sophisticated hardware26 because education is an incentive to which Americans respond.
And that’s essentially what we proposed to Congress in our New GI Bill legislation to help our all-volunteer force work.
Folks, I think this chapter’s lesson learned is what Secretary
Powell just said: “Dare to be the skunk at the picnic.”
If you want to be a leader, sometimes you have to politely and respectfully tell your peers and superiors what they may not wish to hear. And when you do, make sure you have the facts on your side.
We didn’t have the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen we needed to operate sophisticated military technology. In our view, a New GI Bill would help fix that problem and also help America’s youth access post-military education and training.
WHAT’S NEXT
Now let’s start the first leg of the long legislative journey of the Montgomery GI Bill.