THE CURRENT FLOOR ENVIRONMENT

House floor action is now characterized by a mix of relatively fixed traditions combined with evolving practices as the House attempts to confront a changing policy agenda and changing public expectations of Congress. The rules providing for an established ``regular'' order of business, supplemented by predictable consideration of various classes of ``privileged'' business remain the cornerstones of House agenda setting. However, leadership and committee practices in working within this framework are evolving, and the House continues to experiment with practices and procedures which are not formally recognized in the rules.

Over the past several Congresses, the Rules Committee has become increasingly assertive of its prerogative to structure and to limit amending opportunities on the House floor and in the Committee of the Whole. After the early 1970s reforms liberalizing House procedures, it was not uncommon for upwards of 75% of the rules adopted from the Rules Committee to be ``simple, open rules.'' Conversely, roughly two-thirds of the rules reported in the 102d Congress were ``restrictive,'' limiting to varying degrees the ability of Members to offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole.

Most House Republicans and a number of Democrats claim that restrictive rules erode individual Member rights in the interests of speedy processing of legislation. Most Democrats view restrictive rules as necessary to provide the House with a limited range of policy options and to provide some advance notice to committees of changes that Members propose to make in bills they have reported.

During the past two decades, the House has also acted to maximize use of the suspension of the rules procedure. Before 1970, suspension motions were in order on only 2 days per month; after a series of rules changes, suspensions are now in order on 2 days every week. The process allows the House to move legislation rapidly without floor amendment providing that substantial bipartisan support exists to reach the required two-thirds margin for passage.

The net effect of these changes has been to increase the emphasis the House places on forms of consideration that are more directly under the control of the Speaker and the reporting committees. In particular, recognition for motions to suspend the rules and pass a measure is at the discretion of the Speaker, who usually recognizes for this purpose the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction. The same is true of requests for unanimous consent to consider a measure. For measures to be considered in Committee of the Whole under special rules, the decision of the Committee on Rules to report a special rule controls whether the measure can be considered, but today the Rules Committee operates as an arm of the leadership in making this decision. Although these changes have contributed to greater legislative efficiency in the House, many Members especially House Republicans feel excluded from meaningful input into the legislative process.

This sense of isolation has increased partisan controversy in the House on issues of restrictive rules from the Rules Committee and on provisions in special rules limiting the right of the minority to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. The majority argues that the rules do not guarantee a right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions, and that such a restriction does not impair minority rights if the underlying special rule has permitted the minority to offer a substantial alternative to the bill by way of floor amendment. The issue is framed in the context of procedural fairness and parliamentary equity, but also reflects the increasing sense of partisanship prevalent in all House actions.

Many Members complain publicly of ``fragmentation,'' meaning in this context the multiple and competing time pressures that afflict life in Congress today, including short work weeks, short legislative deadlines, conflict between floor and committee activities and among committee activities, and continual travel between capital and constituency. This form of discontent is reflected in Member demands for more effective use of time, and particularly for improved scheduling practices. Senior as well as rank and file Members have expressed desires for increasing predictability through better controlled and managed schedules, so as to enhance the ``quality of life'' for themselves and their families. Erratic scheduling exacerbates problems Members face in preparing for Chamber action, and has focused attention on such technical issues as distribution of committee reports and the text of proposed amendments in a widely and timely available fashion.

These demands are commonly seen as springing from increasing workload pressures on Members. Numerous observers hold that this increase occurs in part because contemporary policy issues are increasing in scope, complexity, and technical character. Increased partisan contentiousness also contributes to fragmentation, because it tends to increase the complexity of the political interactions that compose the policy process, and thereby to reduce its predictability.

Time pressures related to Members' constituencies are another source of fragmentation. These are generated in part by intensified policy demands, but in part also by increasingly demanding requirements of representation and campaigning themselves. Members' need to attend their constituencies not only motivates the frequent travel, but generates demand for short work weeks. It also contributes to desires for additional committee assignments and for opportunities to establish a formal position on major policy issues.

Constituency influence can also be a factor in efforts at congressional reform. Earlier in the 103d Congress, the House amended its Discharge Rule to direct that the names of Members signing a discharge petition be immediately made public. Since its inception, the rule had specified secrecy for petition signers until 218 Members had endorsed a particular petition. Pressure to change the rule came from a cluster of junior Members who complained about the secrecy of the discharge process in an era of open government; their call was echoed by public affairs broadcasters which led in turn to a major constituent letter writing campaign.

The need to establish public positions increases fragmentation pressures by causing many Members and their staff to devote substantial time to actions which are peripheral to major legislative action: one-minute and special order speeches and commemorative legislation. For many, sponsoring commemorative legislation provides the only opportunity to call attention to pressing social issues in an era of limited Federal resources. Conversely, some think time devoted to commemorative legislation is trivial and undermines public confidence in Congress as a deliberative body when it produces so many merely symbolic pieces of legislation.