Why is it often difficult to pass legislation through congress?

Jonathan Woodcock

Why is it often difficult to pass legislation through congress?

In comparison to the British legislative process, the US congress at first glance seems slower and more inefficient at passing bills through both houses than the Westminster parliament. This is due to a number of reasons that will be discussed in this essay.

Firstly, the US congress is not as ‘whipped’ as the British House of Commons and the members of both houses of congress experience virtually no disciplining from party whips who expect them to toe the party line on major issues. This factor can be seen as contributing to the political volatility of congress in relation to the president, as the president can not necessarily rely on the support of congress, even if both houses are ‘controlled’ by his party. This issue was shown during the early years of Clinton’s presidency. Because of the lack of discipline in both houses, the congressmen will tend to vote more freely, and often disagree with those of their own party. This can be seen as a more democratic legislative system as the elected members are voting of their own will and supposedly in the interests of their constituents. The fairly short tenure of members in the chambers, in particular those serving in the House often means that they attempt to ‘make a name for themselves’ during their elected time so that come next election, their constituents are aware of their achievements and in theory are more likely to vote for them.

The members of congress generally have very close constituency links, and this encourages them to prove to their constituents that they are acting on their interests and working hard on their behalf. This may make the congressman take a line contrary to those in the chamber even of his own party, in order to satisfy his district. This action can mean that bills being voted on are not governed in general by the size of the ruling party’s majority in the chamber, but by the views of each of the representatives. Many, including myself believe this is fundamentally a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the US system of government the executive generally has no presence in the legislature. This leads to the president relying on allies in the chambers to introduce his bills laid out in his legislative programme onto the floor of the chamber. Even then, as mentioned previously the president and his cabinet can not be guaranteed the support of congress in any way.

The committee systems in the US legislatures play a much more important role in the legislative process than the standing committees of the UK parliament do. The American committees prepare the actual bill that is to be voted on, as a pose to the British system of simply examining the clauses of the bills, but not being able to act on their own recommendations. The congressional committees have the power to (and have used it) redraft the bill to such an extent that the final product may take a completely different nature and purpose to the original draft.

The sheer volume of legislation proposed by congressmen means that most of the proposals remain just that; proposals and a fairly small number proceed. Much of the legislation introduced by congressmen is to secure the goodwill of supporters and lobbyists, and once introduced makes no difference how far it goes.

Up to ninety percent of all proposed legislation gets no further than sub-committee stage. This can be seen as a justification for the existence of the committee system; by sifting through the huge amounts of bills to prevent the two houses from being overwhelmed. Those bills will sufficient backing will bet a public hearing in which outside groups or individuals may input their views into the legislative procedure. After this consultation stage the bill will be ‘reported’ to the floor of the house where it is then debated and voted on. The exact same bill must be approved by the majority of both chambers for it to become law. If the whole process is not completed in the lifetime of one congress, the whole process will need to start again.

After a bill has passed through both chambers of congress, the bill will then be sent to the president’s office. If the president signs the bill it becomes law. The president has the power of veto in the US legislative process, whereby he can simply reject the bill presented to him (although this in turn can be overturned by a two-thirds vote of both houses). The president can use the power of what is known as a ‘pocket veto’ whereby if a bill is sent to him within ten days of the end of a congressional term he can simply do nothing and the bill will fall with the end of the congress. Another option open to the President is to simply do nothing and after ten days of the bill being sent to him, it becomes law.

The American legislative procedure, although at first sight may seem sluggish and inefficient in comparison to the British system, does have great benefits not seen in the British process. The US action is based closely on Montisque’s separation of powers doctrine in order to stop the dominance of one area of government. It is not possible for the whips to force through bills at the wish of the executive branch, as is the case in the UK nor is their any ‘elected dictatorship’ that the British government has been branded. Instead of using a whacking majority in the Commons and a ‘co-operative’, ‘pro-labour’ life peers in the Lords to steam roll bills through parliament, the US congress would need a broad base of support and consensus for a bill for it to passed onto the statute book.