0n July 24, 1989, the Committee on Ways and Means celebrates its bicentennial. The Committee on Ways and Means is the oldest committee of the Congress. Its history is a large part of our nation's history. The responsibilities vested in the committee have placed it at the center of some of the most critical legislative decisions faced by the Congress. The prestige accorded the committee is due in part, of course, to the breadth of its legislative jurisdiction: all revenues, the management of the public debt, tariff and trade laws, the Social Security and Medicare systems. These responsibilities alone would make it a committee of note. But just as important to its reputation has been the manner in which the members of the committee have exercised those responsibilities. One cannot read the history of the Committee on Ways and Means without recognizing the important role played by certain individuals at critical points in our nation's history. The history of the committee is replete with examples of legislators who, through the strength of their convictions, were able to lead the country in a direction it might not otherwise have gone. Examples include Gallatin, Randolph, Stevens, Underwood, Hull, Doughton, and Mills. Today we face enormous and seemingly permanent budget deficits the likes of which have never been seen in our history. This generation's unwillingness to pay for the government it demands means that future generations will be saddled with an intolerable debt burden. This situation did not begin in the 1980s, but it has increased dramatically during this period. What is disturbing is not so much the size of the debt; significant debts have accumulated in the past, especially in times of war. Much more troubling is our seeming inability to even debate, much less decide, on those changes necessary to reduce or eliminate the oppressive budget deficit. However, in the end it must be done or our nation will suffer the consequences. One can only wonder if this is not one of those critical periods when it is necessary to look beyond narrow parochial interest, a time when strong leadership is required. The future of our children and their children depends upon the leadership we exert today.

The public, journalists, and legislators themselves have often lamented a decline in congressional lawmaking in recent years, often blaming party politics for the lack of legislative output. In Committees and the Decline of Lawmaking in Congress, Jonathan Lewallen examines the decline in lawmaking from a new, committee-centered perspective. Lewallen tests his theory against other explanations such as partisanship and an increased demand for oversight with multiple empirical tests and traces shifts in policy activity by policy area using the Policy Agendas Project coding scheme. He finds that because party leaders have more control over the legislative agenda, committees have spent more of their time conducting oversight instead. Partisanship alone does not explain this trend; changes in institutional rules and practices that empowered party leaders have created more uncertainty for committees and contributed to a shift in their policy activities. The shift toward oversight at the committee level combined with party leader control over the voting agenda means that many members of Congress are effectively cut out of many of the institution’s policy decisions. At a time when many, including Congress itself, are considering changes to modernize the institution and keep up with a stronger executive branch, the findings here suggest that strengthening Congress will require more than running different candidates or providing additional resources.

Two nationally renowned congressional scholars review the evolution of Congress from the early days of the republic to 2006, arguing that extreme partisanship and a disregard for institutional procedures are responsible for the institution's current state of dysfunction.