The Congress of the United States is that institution which regularly goes through changes. At times, the changes are enormous while on other occasions they are minute. Notably, the changes have their driving factors comprised of a variety of internal, as well as, external factors. Over time, therefore, there has been an evolution of the character and the role of the Congress. The primary purpose of the report below will thus be to put into perspective the changes that have occurred in the United States Congress over the last forty years. Besides, it will mention the ways in which the American Congress is different from the British Parliament in light of the numerous developments that both have undergone over time. Primarily, it analyzes the Congressional evolution regarding how and the reasons for its constant adaptation to new issues, problems and also circumstances. (Current & Garraty, 2005, P. 87)
For instance, the ‘regular order’ of making policies in a particular era is in most cases displaced either wholly or partly by a new and an improved ‘regular order’. This is commonly prompted by a broad array of internal, as well as, external developments. Notably, the Congress has broadly changed from just being a policy-making assembly and in particular to the role that parties and committees undertake. The Congress has also undergone historical changes concerning the makeup of its membership e.g. the professionalization of the careers of the lawmakers. One should realize that the internal, as well as, the external forces generally trigger fundamental revisions regarding power distribution.
The Congress together with the membership are regularly changing and also adapting to different conditions, forces and also pressures. Every period of the election, for example, produces small or big changes in how the house, as well as, the membership of the Senate is made-up. A consideration of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 comes to mind here. The act brought changes in the membership of committees thereby streamlining the committee system that had been a lot more cumbersome. It immensely reduced the number of House committees from forty-eight to nineteen. Those in the Senate were reduced from thirty-three to fifteen. The act also brought changes by increasing staff support, strengthening of the oversight role of the Congress over the executive together with laying reforms on the spending, as well as, tax procedures. It came to be known as first ever comprehensive reform in the history of the Congress. Several leaders expressed their concern regarding the changes effected in the institution. (Young, 2002, p. 78).
The composition of the members. Then and now.
The characteristics of the membership and affiliations of the party of those who served in the Congress forty years ago and now is highly different. In general, the changes of those serving in the Congress takes place at a slow pace. However, if the makeup exhibits significant changes, then this would be a suggestion that greater political, social and also economic forces drive the electorate. For instance, the United States has undergone large developments in its society and as a result, it has enormously influenced those serving in the Congress. It has also shaped the priorities and the agenda of the Congress and lastly, it has revealed the shifts in the composition between the two parties. Consequently, this aspect brings forward an important pattern in the membership, as well as, trend that the Congress has undergone. Davidson & Oleszek (2014) asserts that the three features of its composition of the Congress that have since changed include the increase in lawyer-politicians, professionalism i.e. taking politics as a full-time occupation and the diversity in gender and also ethnicity.
Within the period, lawyers have constantly been exist in the membership of the Congress. For example, from the period stretching from 1790 to 1940, two-thirds of the senators and almost half of the entire population of the house representatives were drawn from the field of law. Notably, this proportion highly varies with time. For instance, in the one hundred and the fifth house that was there between 1997 and 1999, the lawyers, one hundred and seventy-two were outnumbered by those who had a business background, one hundred and eighty-two in number. In spite of this, the numbers of lawyers in the Senate was greater and as a result, the law remains as a widely preferred occupation in the Congress over this whole period. (Young, 2002, p. 45). This is because the constituents hold the belief that lawyers in comparison to other occupations had the requisite capacity of making laws as a result of their in-depth comprehension for the Constitution of the United States. Besides, they are perceived as highly skilled in forming concrete arguments, persuading and advocating, qualities that are all fundamental in the entire process of making laws.
Diversity
A profile touching on the congressional members asserts that the primary ethnic groups in America i.e. the African-Americans, Asians and also Hispanics are well under-represented in the House. In the recent census that was conducted in 2010, African Americans who make up thirteen percent of the entire population only had a representation of ten percent in the Congress. The Hispanics, seventeen percent only had a seven percent representation while Asians were making up five percent of the whole population only had a representation of three percent in the Congress. However, worth noting is the recent changes in the membership of the House. Demographically, the Democratic Party underwent reshaping in 2013 to accommodate more minority parties. Consequently, more than half of its members in the Congress are women, Asian and also African Americans. A fundamental impact of the change process is that the minority groups largely inform the process of making policies in a way that a House that is exclusively packed with white men can’t. (Davidson & Oleszek, 2014, P. 45).
Professionalization of the services of the Congress
The pattern of careers of the lawmakers has gone through several significant changes which have brought transformation to the work, as well as, the role of the Congress together with its members. On the first account, the Congress has evolved from being part-time to a full-time institution. In the past, the institution mainly had its functions as a part-time until the period stretching past the Second World War. A primary contributor to sessions that were all year round was because of the increased workload, complexities of the matters at hand and even impromptu events such as unrests and economic crises. This means that the members of the Congress must handle the policy-making requirements and their oversight role in Washington DC and also consistently meet the demands of their people in the constituencies.
The significant difference existing between the Congressional life forty years ago and at the present was the unavailability of the tremendous pressures which came with depression, the Second World War, and even the cold war. Inconsequentially, foreign affairs was a grave problem back then. Presently, the Congress deals with matters all year round touching on the several global, domestic and also technological issues that would no doubt surprise the former members. These array of issues range from same-sex marriages, the threat of terrorism and climatic changes. Also, the increase in the American population has immensely contributed to the expansion of the agenda of the House and its gradual increase in size over time. Notably, Davidson & Oleszek (2014) asserts that there has also been the evolution of political parties, parliamentary procedures and also committees among several other changes. From a heavy reliance on the select committees that were formally temporary, the Congress has currently established permanent committees.
The length of service of the members
It was common during the first Congress that there was a significant turnover regarding the membership of the Congress just after each election. Very high resignations, as well as, turnovers became the hallmark of the House in the period of the pre-civil war. On average, a senator only served for a maximum of four years. Members chose only to go for a single term and not go for a reelection. Lengthy services were also highly disregarded by several citizens. This meant that long congressional service was not viable in the previous Congresses. However, the situation has since changed as each of the members constantly seek to make a renewal of their terms. The emergence of the single-party state, as well as, immensely, contributed to the re-election of the members of the Congress.
Differences between the United States Congress and the British Parliament
Substantial differences exist between the United States and the British Congress. The system of the British government makes a provision for greater power than exists in the United States system has the majority party. In the US, the president is elected independently from the Congressional election. He consequently serves independently from the legislature, a branch of the government. The Constitution of the United States has also independently established its three branches, judiciary, executive, and legislature, with the intention that not a single branch should exercise excessive influence in running the government. Therefore, this means that the president can adequately represent the political party that is varied with the majority available in the two congressional houses.
In Britain, on the other hand, the prime minister is subject to being elected from within the largest party available in the House of Commons. This is the primary legislative institution in the British system. The House of Lords has been regarded to be more ceremonial. Any political party that makes up the British parliament would be responsible for the selection of the prime minister. After his selection, the prime minister appoints his cabinet right from the membership of his party available in the parliament. This would then be the governing council for the country in the period as stipulated by the country’s constitution. Essentially, the idea of separation of powers does not exist in the British system.
As per the American Constitution, the Congress has 2 chambers each of which possess considerable amounts of power. Besides, their composition is entirely separate from each other. A particular party can have the most representation in the Senate while the other in the House of Representatives. Essentially, Current & Garraty (2005) asserts that the responsibilities of the 2 chambers overlap with an extraordinary level of authority. For example, the House has the responsibility to originate the spending bills. On the other hand, the Senate has the sole responsibility of confirming the nominations of the president to various high-ranking positions in different federal agencies. Such include the treasury, defense department and that of the state. (Young, 2002, p. 56). Besides, the Senate is the only legislative body that wields the authority of ratifying the treaties that have been accented to by the head of state.
Britain has an almost similar system with some critical differences. The parliament in Britain consists of 2 chambers. They are the House of Lords, as well as, the House of Commons. In essence, the two chambers hold approximately six hundred and fifty members. They function just in a similar manner as the American Congress meaning that they also make and alter laws. They do meet in sessions which typically last for an entire year before the commencement of the next session. However, the difference exists in the speed that the British and the United States Congress carry out their obligations. In the United States, Davidson & Oleszek (2014) mentions that the system which is that if a two party keeps one side from carrying out the activities that it may want. However, for the British system, the parliament is run by a single party that controls it in terms of what is being discussed and the activities of the session. Therefore, if significant changes are required, they would be readily achievable. (Young, 2002, p. 21).
Notably, the system in the United States has been set as such to create a gridlock, controversy and also to permit the small group to prevent the largest from passing the legislations that they may otherwise deem as unfit. Current & Garraty (2005) argues that the United States government consists politicians who take most of their time in highly heated debates at the expense of improving the actual situation of the country. In light of this, the Congress in the United States might be entirely frustrating. However, it has worked well for close to two hundred years. In conclusion, the above article has adequately discussed the changes that have taken place in the United States Congress over the last forty years. Besides, it has mentioned the differences between the American Congress and the British Parliament. Essentially, both systems should work towards the improvement of the quality of life.
Reference
Current, R., & Garraty, J. (2005). Words that made American history. Boston: Little, Brown.
Davidson, R., & Oleszek, W. (2014). Congress and its members (14th Ed.). Los Angeles: Congressional Quarterly Press.
Young, R. (2002). The British Parliament. Evanston [Ill.]: Northwestern University Press.
