Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Procedural change often has generated unanticipated consequences for the policymaking process. This article examines an effort in the United States Congress to institute a procedural mechanism for deficit reduction, the so-called Gramm-Rudman-Hollings procedure. Although the triggering mechanism for automatic spending reductions ultimately was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, this case illustrates the strategic consequences that flow from procedural change. Negotiations over the content of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings dramatically shifted strategic advantages between Congress and the president as well as between Republicans and Democrats. A reform that started out with particular strategic consequences ended up being transformed into a procedure having quite different implications. This period, therefore, illustrates the crucial role that the strategic environment plays in legislative bargaining over deficit reduction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Richard Fenno , Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973).

2. Leroy Rieselbach reviews these developments in his Congressional Reform (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1986).

3. Timothy Cook , “The Electoral Connection in the 99th Congress,” PS, 19(1):16-22 (Winter 1986).

4. Elizabeth Wehr , “Congress Enacts Far-Reaching Budget Measure,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 14 Dec. 1985, pp. 2604-2611.

Elizabeth Wehr, “Constitutional Test Hangs over Budget Plan,” ibid., 7 Dec. 1985, pp. 2547-2549.

idem, “FY `86 Budget Projects Small Rise in Spending,” ibid., 9 Feb. 1985, pp. 217-224.

7. Pamela Fessler , “Senate Panel's Party-Line Vote OKs Budget,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 16 Mar. 1985, pp. 475-478.

8. Elizabeth Wehr , “Budget Squaks through Senate Floor Vote,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 11 May 1985, pp. 871-874.

9. Jacqueline Calmes , “House Panel Gives Quick OK to '86 Budget,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 18 May 1985, pp. 915-922.

10.

10. Jacqueline Calmes , “House, with Little Difficulty, Passes '86 Budget Resolution,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 25 May 1985, pp. 971-979.

11.

11. “Congress Wearily OKs '86 Budget,” Providence Journal, 2 Aug. 1985.

12.

For a report on Gramm's perspective, see Jacqueline Calmes , “Gramm: Making Waves, Enemies and History,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 15 Mar. 1986, pp. 611-615.

13.

Steven Roberts , “Many in Congress Say Session of '85 Was Unproductive,” New York Times, 22 Dec. 1985.

14.

14. This quote is from Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and is cited in Wehr , “Congress Enacts Far-Reaching Budget Measure,” p. 2605.

15.

15. The office of comptroller general later became one of the critical constitutional issues in the lawsuit against Gramm-Rudman-Hollings as critics claimed Congress's power to remove the comptroller general violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.

16.

16. Elizabeth Wehr , “Economists Warn Gramm-Rudman Threatens Stagnation,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 26 July 1986, p. 1681.

17.

17. Moynihan made this argument in his column, “Placing the Deficit in Perspective,” Providence Journal, 23 July 1985.

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and the Politics of Deficit Reduction

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References