House Ways & Means

I realize I'm a little late posting this, but during the first week of my internship on the Hill, I was fortunate enough to observe a mark-up of a piece of legislation in the House Ways and Means Committee, of which my Congressman is a member. This committee handles all legislation concerning taxes and other revenue-raising methods, and also handles issues like Social Security, Medicare reform, trade agreements, etc. For those of you not familiar with a mark-up, it is the hearing during which the members debate and propose amendment to various pieces of legislation. The hearing I attended was a mark-up of H.R. 3, which would prohibit the use of tax-payer dollars to fund abortions. Chairman Camp was quick to point out to the entire committee and to the observers that this piece of legislation was something that would be controversial and that as a committee, Ways & Means is always hesitant to discuss and review legislation concerning social issues, since it usually focuses solely on issues of taxes and revenue. He instructed the committee to view H.R. 3 from a revenue standpoint and avoid including their social beliefs about abortions into the debate. However, I noticed that just a few minutes into the hearing that this would not be the case, and the debate turned from the issue of taxpayer funds for abortions to just the issue of abortion, making it obvious where the party lines fell.

During the debate and amendment process, I was able to observe how the format and seating arrangements of the Committee. The Chairman sat in the highest row in the exact center, with the most senior Republican committee members to his right and the most senior Democrat members to his left. The members sat in order of seniority spanning outward, with the most junior members sitting in the lower row. I thought it was interesting to see how here, much like at the Supreme Court, the seating was based on seniority (although it did not alternate sides, sticking straight to party lines).

I was reminded of this experience (and to blog about it!) after reading the first few chapters of this week's assignment, The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. The authors discussed the histories of both the House and the Senate, and I was drawn to a section detailing the various reforms made to committees during the 1970's, focusing my attention to the reforms made specifically to the Ways & Means committee. Several freshmen members targeted Ways & Means because it was extremely powerfull and had a jurisdiction over very important policies, even extending to social issues (H.R. 3) if they involved revenue. The Democratic caucus expanded the committee from twenty-five to thirty-seven members, spreading out the power and giving the majority ten more positions on the committee. Ways & Means was also forced to create subcommittees, again diluting the concentration of the power of the committee, effectively reducing its status as a "super-committee." However, after observing the committee in action last week, Ways & Means still appeared to me as a one of the most powerful committees in the House.

ED