Question: What are the Procedural differences between a Congressional Majority vs. Minority?

[FrenchieCat]

Please provide only documented facts.

I'm trying to gather information.

Snarks need not respond.


This is what I've gotten thus far:

The Majority sets the agenda and controls what bills will come up for vote.

So is this important, and if so, why or why not?

also...

In the House, for instance, the leadership of the majority party controls the legislative agenda entirely. It decides not only which issues will be taken up, but also how they can be debated, whether amendments will be allowed, and how the matter will be handled on the House floor. If it wished, it could — and on occasion does — prevent the minority party from offering even a single amendment to important bills brought up on the floor during the session.
http://congress.indiana.edu/radio_commentaries/why_holding_the_majority_matters.php


and.... The majority selects who will chair which Committee.

I don't know who decides the subject matters to be taking up by the chair and the respective committees?

A list of the 16 Senate and 19 House standing committees; the 4 Senate and 3 House special/select committees; and the 4 joint committees. More information about each committee and the subjects it handles can be found on its website.

Senate Committees
Standing
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Appropriations
Armed Services
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Budget
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment and Public Works
Finance
Foreign Relations
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Judiciary
Rules and Administration
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Veterans' Affairs

Special, Select, and Other
Indian Affairs
Select Committee on Ethics
Select Committee on IntelligenceSpecial Committee on Aging

Joint
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Committee on the Library
Joint Economic Committee


House Committees
Standing
Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Financial Services
Budget
Transportation and Infrastructure
Science and Technology
Energy and Commerce
Ways and Means
Foreign Affairs
Oversight and Government Reform
Education and Labor
Homeland Security
Judiciary
Rules
House Administration
Small Business
Veterans' Affairs
Natural Resources

Special, Select, and OtherStandards of Official Conduct
Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
http://www.centeroncongress.org/learn_about/feature/qa_legislative_process.html#committee_structure

[FrenchieCat]

1. Looking this up is not as clear cut as I had hoped.

[theothersnippywshrub]

2. It is just about power and control over everything that happens.

There may be hundreds of details with thousands of wrinkles, but it is just about power and control over everything.

[FrenchieCat]

3. There are a lot of DUers saying there isn't any difference......

[theothersnippywshrub]

4. Those people are not democrats. Just DUers. Some genuine, some not. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

5. The difference is that Republicans run everything, regardless of who wins elections.

[onenote]

6. really. so the repubs would've brought legislation to the floor

to increase the minimum wage? to reauthorize SCHIP?

[FrenchieCat]

7. So having Republicans back in the majority would be a real nightmare!

No legislation that would benefit the people would even be brought to the floor for a vote.

That would be hell for this country!

[tritsofme]

11. House Republicans did not allow a vote on the minimum wage for 10 years.

Because they knew if it ever got to the floor it would pass overwhelmingly.

They can do a lot of damage in the majority.

[Jim Sagle]

8. Just a fake to the left while they give big bux to the military, the banks and Big Insurance.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I want some fucking facts, I'm tired of the bullshit soundbytes thrown out like red meat.

How does this make you better than those on the other side,
that speak the same. hint! It doesn't.

[Jim Sagle]

12. The facts are right there in plain sight. Not interested in doing your research.

[FrenchieCat]

13. If you didn't want to answer, you should have skipped this thread......

I'm interested in what those who have substance to offer have to say,
in terms of their take on the ramifications of Republicans being in the
majority. You see no difference, and although I know that is a lie,
I didn't put up this thread to argue with those who simply drive by
offering nothing but destructive missives. If that's what I wanted,
I'd have gone to FR and asked the same.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Evidently you don't realize just how FED UP many of us are with the situation as it unfolded this

last year.

Gates is SecDef, Goldman Sachs is large and in charge, no Bushies were or will be indicted, Siegleman's still in jail on a blatant frameup, insurance companies get their asses licked while single payer advocates get arrested, and YOU WANT LINKS?

Hey genius, the sky is blue. Want a link for that too?

[FrenchieCat]

16. it is obvious that you don't even have the courtesy within you

to even answer a straight up question with nothing more
than your "anti-government-I-hate-everything-about-this-country-
and-even-though-Kucinich-didn't-get-elected-I'm-still-gonna-demand-
that-I-get-what-I-demand-or-else-I-hate-it-all" rant.

How are you any different from Republicans?

They want everything they want without having won the election
just the way you do.

So, now I'm supposed to be concerned about how you feel?
Why is that?

[Jim Sagle]

18. I can't think of a single reason why.

[The Hope Mobile]

10. They allow us to bring little things once in a while . . . just enought ot keep up the charade

although its not really republicans that are in control . . . its corporations . . . and republicans have a history of being much more corporate friendly, ie corrupt . . . but we're a close second at this point.

[FrenchieCat]

14. You gave your opinion, I was asking about documented information

on what procedurally a majority can do that a minority cannot.

[karynnj]

19. Not true

Republicans in charge -we debate things like the bankruptcy bill or destroying social security

Democrats in charge - we debate things like health care.

[Igel]

17. Partial answer.

I assume you mean Senate. It's slightly different in the House. Not greatly for most things.

A minority member has the rights of any other member. Place holds, make motions, vote, raise points of order, asking for rulings and quorum calls. It also has a right to representation on committees. And members, regardless of minority/majority, can have stuff that never formed part of the proceedings inserted into the official records as though it was part of the proceedings.

The majority gets to decide who the chairman is. The chair sets the agenda. The chair gets to decide when there's a recess and not. Granted, these are generally part of the consent order for the day and can be overriden by vote, but the majority tends to not challenge what the majority leader says on this matter (esp. if the majority leader consults with the majority members). The chair, since s/he decides the agenda--here not meaning "goals" but the actual meeting agendas--will be able to schedule things for votes; he usually has an idea of the schedule he'd like to see things run on.

A good leader polls his party caucus and makes sure that everybody's is or at least sufficient are on board. If you're a Democrat, have 60 votes and can't find a compromise that makes your bill a bill that the Democratic caucus will support, or find repub votes, then you're probably not being a good leader or the majority whip is being a bad whip. The whip is the enforcer: s/he and the leader should find a way of issuing threats and bribes to make sure there's sufficient party unity or the leader makes sure that important legislative goals pass, but also (unfortunately) as a politician looks to make sure that the Senate proceedings as a whole serve partisan political ends and helps keep his party in power and wins elections; Senate rules allow this. (Note that party-purity requirements are purely political and partisan, and that while the Senate sort-of/kind-of allows the chair to run the Senate as his persoanl satrapy this usually ends badly without nearly absolute majority buy-in.)

The chair also appoints the chair of committees and, I believe, the members. It's a courtesy to consider seniority and senator's wishes in the matter. The majority gets a majority on every committee. When special panels and committees are formed, they routinely get majority majorities. I believe the parliamentarian is also appointed by the majority. Chair is also nominally involved in allocating space and funding; the minority tends to get worse and less space, as well as less funding. Some of both are mandatory and the chair can't control that; some isn't.

The chair and rules committee propose the Senate rules that are voted on (typically by consent) as a matter of course as one of the first bills. The chair is the main go-to guy for dealing with the House leadership. Moreover, manager's bills or amendments in the Senate are usually the Senate's chair's bill, in consultation with other committee chairs. A manager's bill is legislation drawn up by the leadership to either reconcile a series of divergent bills coming out of committee, or to simply the reconciliation process between House and Senate bills and avoid a conference committee.

The Senate majority leader also tends to have more of a bully pulpit in the media and more access to slush funds, lobbyists, and the president. Apart from having more control over Senate funds, these are all informal and pragmatic consequences. Note that you want things resolved in committee because you don't get no stinkin' cloture votes in committees. Moreover, committee chairs can deep 6 items referred to it. You want something buried, send it to a committee with a hostile chair. The minority members may whine, but committee-internal politics aren't typically front-page news. Moreover, since the committee chairs are in charge of scheduling hearings, the people invited to testify, and starting the subpoena process, being chair is a Desired Thing. As majority leader, you want chairs that match your personal or party's goals: They deep 6 what you want canned, they hold hearings on matters that advances your goals, they squelch or fast-track legislation as needed. Committees are were a lot of the really serious politicking happens, and the minority is fairly pointless there.

The committees are also where compromises and bipartisanship really take place. If you have a dysfunctional Senate, look at the committee chairs first and foremost. (NB: It's pretty much the last place people look.) When you get something coming out of committee on a straight party-line vote with the majority saying the process wasn't fair, a lot of senators will back up their colleagues on the committee. This little detail isn't a repub or dem matter. Both parties do it, for good reason. On the other hand, committee dysfunction can result from having the entire Senate split so that dems or repubs vote party-line not because of (un)fairness or disagreement with the proposed legislation, but just to make a point. Since the majority in the Senate has a majority on all committees, minority participation is, quite frankly, unnecessary--except that screwing with the minority there feeds ill-will in the Senate as a whole.

The majority of the Senate in attendance--a super majority in cases of ending debate--also decides legislation. This can include accepting amendments.

Holds are a "courtesy" given to members to show courtesy to the chair and most useful in the hands of minority members (or dissidenting members of the majoriy). They're meaningless except as a courtesy. They require two to participate for any abuse--the rank-and-file senator and the Senate chair. If Senator N.O. Way places a hold on a nomination or bill he's just saying that he intends to filibuster. Chair Ramit Through should consider that as a friendly warning. He can ignore it. If Senator Through thinks he has the votes and the time, he calls for cloture vote. Problem solved. Unless he likes being able to complain that all these holds are tying his hands. Often pointing at a hold as an excuse means (1) the chair and whip couldn't muster votes to get it past cloture or (2) the chair begrudges the time necessary for the cloture vote. In the case of (2) it really means either the chair benefits or simply doesn't think the legislation/nomination the hold's holding up matter as much as other things.

Many of the chair's privileges can be overriden. Mostly they're not.