In the vein of some fledgling theoretical work on Congress, I look for evidence of strategic intercameral behavior in the chamber sequence of the passage of 950 bills from 1955 to 2002. Specifically, I construct and test a semiformal model in which communication is assumed to take place between congressional majority party leaders capable of choreographing bill passage using their agenda control powers. These leaders allow the chamber with the majority whose ideal point is furthest from the president's to pass its version of the bill first. The empirical analysis corroborates the model.
Binder, S.A. (1997). Minority rights, majority rule: Partisanship and the development of Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Binder, S.A. (2003). Stalemate: Causes and consequences of legislative gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings .
3.
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63-82.
4.
Campbell, A.C., Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (2002). Agenda power in the U.S. Senate, 1877-1986. In D. W. Brady & M. D. McCubbins (Eds.), Party, process, and political change in Congress: New perspectives on the history of Congress (pp. 146-165). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
Chiou, F., & Rothenberg, L.S. (2003). When pivotal politics meets partisan politics. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 503-522.
6.
Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M.D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Den Hartog, C., & Monroe, N.M. (2006). Home field advantage: An asymmetric-cost theory of legislative agenda influence in the U.S. Senate. Typescript, Department of Political Science, Michigan State University.
9.
Diermeier, D., & Myerson, R.B. (1999). Bicameralism and its consequences for the internal organization of legislatures. American Economic Review, 89, 1182-1196.
10.
Evans, C.L., & Oleszek, W.J. (2001). Message politics and Senate procedure. In C. C. Campbell & N. C. Rae (Eds.), The contentious Senate: Partisanship, ideology, and the myth of cool judgment (pp. 107-129). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
11.
Gailmard, S., & Jenkins, J.A. (2007). Negative agenda control in the Senate and House: Fingerprints of majority party power. Journal of Politics , 69, 689-700.
12.
Gilligan, T.W., & Krehbiel, K. (1987). Collective decision making and standing committees: An informational rationale for restrictive amendment procedures. Economics and Organization, 3, 287-335.
13.
Gilmour, J.B. (1995). Strategic disagreement: Stalemate in American politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
14.
Howell, W., Adler, S., Cameron, C., & Riemann, C. (2000). Divided government and the legislative productivity of Congress, 1945-1994. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 285-312.
15.
Idelson, H. (1996a, March 23). House votes to crack down on illegal immigrants. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 794-798.
16.
Idelson, H. (1996b, May 4). Bill heads to conference after Senate passage. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 1221-1224.
17.
Ippolito, D.S. (1983). House-Senate budget conferences: Institutional and strategic advantages. American Politics Quarterly, 11, 71-90.
18.
Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Kernell, S. (1991). Facing an opposition Congress: The president's strategic circumstance. In G. W. Cox & S. Kernell (Eds.), The politics of divided government. Boulder, CO: Westview.
20.
Kieweit, D.R., & McCubbins, M.D. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Kirschten, D. (1996, August 3). Crossing the line. National Journal, 1620-1624.
22.
Krehbiel, K. (1991). Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
23.
Krehbiel, K. (1998). Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Mayhew, D. (2002). Divided we govern: Party control, lawmaking, and investigations, 1946-2002 (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
McCarty, N., Poole, K.T., & Rosenthal, H. (2001). The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review, 95, 673-688.
26.
Ortega, L.D., & McQuillan, L.J. (1996). Why does the Senate "win" in conference committee? A stability explanation. Public Choice , 87, 101-116.
27.
Parks, D.J. (1999a, February 27). Fuzzy battle lines complicate effort to overhaul financial services. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 491-483.
28.
Parks, D.J. (1999b, April 24). The house that CRA built: Redlining law revisited. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 938-944.
29.
Poole, K.T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales . American Journal of Political Science, 42, 964-993.
30.
Poole, K.T. (2003). Changing minds? Not in Congress! Typescript, University of Houston.
31.
Poole, K.T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political economic history of roll-call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Rogers, J.R. (1998). Bicameral sequence: Theory and state legislative evidence. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 1025-1060.
33.
Rogers, J.R. (2005). Empirical determinants of bicameral sequence in state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30, 29-42.
34.
Rohde, D.W. (1991). Parties and leader in the postreform Congress . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Sin, G., & Lupia, A. (2004). How the president and Senate affect the balance of power in the House: A constitutional theory of leadership bargaining. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
36.
Snyder, J., & Groseclose, T. (2000). Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 193-211.
37.
Strom, G.S., & Rundquist, B.S. (1977). A revised theory of winning in House-Senate conferences. American Political Science Review , 79, 448-453.
38.
Swift, E. (1996). The making of an American Senate: Reconstitutive change in Congress, 1787-1841. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Victor, K. (1999, October 30). Loan star Phil. National Journal, 3122-3127.
41.
Weingast, B.W., & Marshall, W.J. (1988). The industrial organization of Congress, or, why legislatures, like firms, are not organized as markets . Journal of Political Economy, 96, 132-163.
42.
Wirls, D., & Wirls, S. (2004). The invention of the United States Senate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
