Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 REORGANIZATION IN THE MODERN CONGRESS
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (Public Law 79-601, 60 Stat. 812) is generally regarded as marking the inception of the ``modern Congress.'' However, the Act had a limited effect on House and Senate floor procedure because the first Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress was severely limited by its enabling resolution from recommending changes in rules pertaining to floor procedures. The Act sought to give the Congress greater control over legislative business and over the schedule of each session. Coming at a time when the congressional system was overloaded with the pressure of the wartime legislative environment, the Act minimized extraneous or peripheral legislation in the Senate by banning the introduction of certain types of private legislation. It also set a congressional adjournment target of July 31 except in times of national emergency or unless waived by the House and Senate.
The act also expanded Senate standards on germaneness of amendments to House-Senate conference committees. It permitted conferees negotiating on a second Chamber substitute to report an alternative substitute as a conference compromise, provided it was germane to the provisions in either Chamber's original position. The rules change limited the opportunity for conferees to include unrelated subjects with which the Senate had not dealt with before.
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
Similarly, significant provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140) primarily affected committee procedures. However, some substantial reforms were made to Senate Rules on aspects of the legislative process. The Act required that reports on a measure (including, in the House, conference reports) be available for 3 days before a measure was considered on the floor, to give Members an opportunity to review provisions in a report before acting on its final disposition. Also, in an attempt to permit airing of important views in a bipartisan fashion, the 1970 Act required that debate time on a conference report be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Finally, the Act allowed committees to meet while the Senate was in session, with the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Previously, committees needed unanimous consent to meet during Senate sessions, and sometimes a single objection prevented committees from conducting business.
The work of the Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System, chaired by Adlai Stevenson of Illinois in 1976-1977, resulted in S. Res. 4 in 1977. In this measure, the only significant provisions affecting procedural or scheduling questions were those (1) permitting committees to meet during the first 2 hours of Senate floor sessions, or until 2:00 p.m., and (2) requiring committee amendments to be within the jurisdiction of the reporting committee.
The Committee's final report, however, also recommended reforms in scheduling and information practices. Some of these were later implemented, and some others continue to be advocated today, as discussed later in this chapter and in later parts of this report.
After these committee reorganization efforts, there were examinations of internal congressional issues, either by existing entities, by panels established for that specific purpose, or by informal groups. Again, most of these did not make procedural issues a focus, and their activities are addressed in more detail in other chapters. Although several of the studies did offer recommendations on procedural issues, the Senate did not act comprehensively on any of them. These panels included: (1) The Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures in 1982-1983, composed of former Senators James B. Pearson of Kansas and Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut; (2) The 1984 Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System chaired by Senator Dan Quayle of Indiana, later Vice President; and (3) The Committee on Rules and Administration in 1988.
In addition, packages of reform proposals attracting substantial attention were offered in 1984 by then Majority Whip Ted Stevens of Alaska and in 1985 by then Minority Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Additional proposals resulted in 1986 from the work of an informal task force, known as the ``Quality of Life Committee,'' led by Senators David Pryor of Arkansas (a member of the Joint Committee) and John C. Danforth of Missouri.