In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

97 5 Opponents Take Aim in the House Observers of Congress frequently conclude that it is easier to obstruct bills than it is to enact legislation. Those opposed to a bill— even when they hold a minority opinion—can draw on an assortment of maneuvers that may potentially block action on a bill. When those opposed to a bill happen to include the chair and ranking minority member of the committee that has jurisdiction over the bill, the chances that the committee will favorably report the bill are remote. Only when supporters are able to exert considerable force can a bill be dislodged from stubborn committee leadership. Such was the case of the full employment bill in the House, and it took the intervention of the president to resolve the stalemate. The groups against the full employment bill emerged forcefully when the House considered the issue. The House action on the full employment bill exemplifies the struggle that occurs when strong forces for change collide with the unswerving power of the status quo. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT ALTERS THE BILL’S COURSE From the outset in the House, H.R. 2202, a bill almost identical to the original Senate bill, faced an uphill battle because the House parliamentarian assigned it and a similar bill (H.R. 4181) to a committee with conservative leadership. The House Committee on Banking and Currency was chaired by Brent Spence (D-KY), a loyal supporter of the New Deal, and had among its members H.R. 2202 cosponsors Wright Patman (D-TX) and George Outland (D-CA).1 Banking and Currency would have seemed a more appropriate committee to handle such a major economic policy measure. However, the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Department (hereafter referred to as the Executive Expenditures Committee) had jurisdiction over all matters concerning the Bureau of the Budget. Parliamentarian Lewis Deschler referred it to the Executive Expenditures Committee because he concluded that the In order to view this proof accurately, the Overprint Preview Option must be checked in Acrobat Professional or Adobe Reader. Please contact your Customer Service Representative if you have questions about finding the option. Job Name: -- /347091t 98 Wasem budget process was the central thrust of the proposal.2 Although there had been internal discussion within the administration over whether the Bureau of the Budget or a newly created agency should set full employment policy, the administration as well as the bill’s congressional sponsors had apparently not weighed the committee jurisdictional consequences of designating the bureau as the lead agency. The conservative reputations of Executive Expenditures Committee Chairman Carter Manasco (D-AL) and ranking minority member Clare Hoffman (R-MI) signaled that the bill would not receive a warm reception.3 During the 1930s, Manasco had been the secretary to Representative William B. Bankhead when Bankhead was Speaker of the House. After Bankhead’s death in 1940, Manasco won that seat in the House in 1941. Although Bankhead had been a strong supporter of the New Deal, Manasco did not share his mentor’s liberalism. Hoffman, the ranking member of the Executive Expenditures Committee, was a vociferous critic of organized labor and the New Deal. His staunch isolationist stand and his popularity with anti-Semitic groups and other extreme elements on the right led to accusations that Hoffman had fascist sympathies.4 Hoffman was much more strident and controversial than the ranking member of the Banking and Currency Committee, Jesse Wolcott, who was also from Michigan.5 Although H.R. 2202 and S. 380 were introduced simultaneously, the House proceeded more slowly on the legislation. The Senate was in the midst of the final floor debate and vote on S. 380 before the House Executive Expenditures Committee even began hearings on H.R. 2202 and H.R. 4181. The slow start, however, did not prevent the Executive Expenditures Committee from devoting most of its attention during this session of the 79th Congress to the full employment bill. The character of the Executive Expenditures Committee’s deliberations differed markedly from the tone of the deliberations in the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. Unlike the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, the House Executive Expenditures Committee did not solicit the views of people within the administration who would have been responsible for implementing the full employment bill. Although the Executive Expenditures Committee did invite administration representatives and proponents of the full employment bill to testify, they gave free reign to those opposed to the proposal. As the House hearings...

Share