Understanding Congress

The topic of this episode is, “Why should we care about Congress's power of the purse?”Well, we are just getting through the FY2026 budget process, which Congress was supposed to finish nearly half a year ago. And the next budget process has begun.During the second administration of Donald Trump, we have seen an escalation of the longstanding battle between the executive branch and the legislative branch over federal revenue-raising and federal spending. Mr. Trump famously unleashed the Department of Government Efficiency, and he has refused to spend money appropriated by Congress. In other cases, he has repurposed money appropriated for one purpose to another purpose. And this is to say nothing of some of the peculiar revenue-raising maneuvers he has made, such as seizing oil from Venezuela, selling it, and then tucking the money in an overseas bank account.Should we be bothered by any of these doings? Should we really care whether Congress or the president exerts more or less power over the federal purse?To discuss these questions, I have with me Shalanda Young, who has an extraordinary amount of expertise and experience in federal budgeting matters. Ms. Young presently is a Distinguished Scholar in Residence and Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University’s law school.Previously, Ms. Young was the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget from 2021 to 2025. In that position, she also led the development of all four of President Joseph Biden’s budgets and presented them before Congress each year. She was also a lead negotiator for the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 that averted a first-ever debt default and lifted the Nation’s debt ceiling. Ms. Young came to the executive branch with a load of legislative branch experience. She worked for the House Appropriations Committee for nearly 15 years and served the Committee as the Staff Director.So who better to discuss Congress’s power of the purse?Read the full transcript here.

The topic of this episode is, “What is the primary problem?”Every two years, we have congressional elections, which feature both primary elections and general elections. For nearly everyone who listens to this podcast, this seems like an eternal feature of governance system: primary elections are used to winnow the candidate field, and then general elections give voters the choice between two or maybe three finalists.But in truth, congressional primaries are a more recent development in our political history. They became the norm only about five or six decades ago.And like any other system of rules—be it the laws restricting investments or the rules of baseball—primaries are imperfect and susceptible to gaming by the players. Worse, according to some critics, primaries are fueling toxic partisanship within Congress and curbing its capacity to serve the public.Is there a primary problem? And what is this problem? To help us think through this subject I have with me Nick Troiano. He is the author of The Primary Solution: Rescuing Our Democracy from the Fringes (Simon & Schuster, 2024). Nick is the executive director of Unite America, an organization that advocates for nonpartisan election reform and alternatives to partisan primary elections.Click here to read a full transcript of the episode.

The topic of this episode is, “Should Congress pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?”The federal government experienced a shutdown in autumn 20025, which is one of many that have occurred in the past 20 years. The nation also has racked up about $38 trillion in debt, and Congress and the president have not taken real action to right America’s fiscal ship.So should Congress pass a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution?My guest Kurt Couchman says ‘Yes, it should.’ Kurt is the author of the new book, Fiscal Democracy in America: How a Balanced Budget Amendment Can Restore Sound Governance (Palgrave MacMillan, 2025).Kurt has been kicking around Capitol Hill for about 15 years. Presently he is a senior fellow at Americans for Prosperity, a group that promotes the principles and policies of economic freedom and liberty. Previously, Kurt worked for two members of Congress, and has had stints at the Cato Institute and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, among other gigs. He has spent a lot of time engaged with Congress on matters relating to federal spending and the budget, so I am delighted to have him here with us to discuss the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.Click here for the full transcript to the episode.

The topic of this episode is, “Was James Madison the first majority leader?”Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have a majority leader. At the time of the recording this podcast, Republican John Thune of South Dakota is the Senate majority leader, and Republican Steve Scalise of Louisiana is the House majority leader.Now, congressional scholars tend to argue that the majority leader emerged as a position in each chamber in 1899. Democrat Arthur B Gorman of Maryland was the first Senate majority leader, and Republican Sereno Elisha Payne of New York was the first House majority leader.My AEI colleague Jay Cost has a different view. He thinks the first majority leader appeared on Capitol Hill far earlier, and it was Virginia’s James Madison. So, we’re going to discuss that claim, which you can find in his recent piece, "Icons of Congress: James Madison — The First Majority Leader."So, we’re going to discuss that claim.Dr. Jay Cost is the Gerald R. Ford nonresident senior fellow at AEI and the author of the superb book, James Madison: America’s First Politician (2021), and other fine volumes on politics and history. Regular readers of UnderstandingCongress.org no doubt have seen Jay’s various reports and essays, and if you have not seen them, do have a look.Click here to read the full transcript.

The topic of this episode is, Why are legislators on social media?”We’ve all seen it, and if you haven’t, well, you will soon enough. Social media posts by members of Congress. They are on Facebook, X.com (what used to be called Twitter), Bluesky, and the like. The average voter may be forgiven for wondering, “Why are these lawmakers hanging out online? Don’t they have anything better to do?”To try to help us better understand what is going on here, I have Annelise Russell, Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Russell has been studying legislators’ use of social media for years and is the author of Tweeting is Leading: How Senators Communicate and Represent in the Age of Twitter (Oxford, 2021). So who better to discuss this topic with us?Click here to read the full transcript.

The topic of this episode is a recent book that is titled, Congressional Deliberation: Major Debates, Speeches, and Writings 1774-2023 (Hackett 2024). The book is edited by Jordan T. Cash, a professor at James Madison College at Michigan State University, and by Kevin J. Burns, a professor at Benedictine College. As the book’s title indicates, its coverage is capacious: the very first excerpt comes from John Adams’ diary entries on the debates in the continental Congress, which he wrote in 1774. The books’ very last entry is taken from the debates that led to the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023.Certainly, I could go on and on about all the parts of the book that fascinate me, but today we’re going to do something better than that. I am going to chat with one of the editors, Jordan Cash.Click here to read the full transcript.

The topic of this episode is, “Can term limits fix Congress?”Many Americans, including possibly you, dear listener, look at Congress and think, “These people stink. They spend decades in Congress and are out of touch with the American people and pay too much attention to special interests.” This widespread feeling unsurprisingly leads to nearly 90 percent of Americans telling pollsters they favor term limits for legislators.So would term limits be a helpful reform? To help us think through this question I have with me Dr. Casey Burgat, a professor at George Washington University. He is the editor of a new volume, We Hold These Truths: How to Spot the Myths That are Holding America Back (Authors Equity, 2025). It's a fun book, and has contributions from a lot of smart people. The book also includes a chapter that Casey authored on this very topic of term limits for Congress. So who better for us to have on the program?Click here for the full transcript of the episode.

The topic of this episode is, “What has become of the United States Senate and can it be revived?”The Senate did not have a good year in 2024. The chamber did not pass a budget resolution, nor did the Senate enact any of the dozen annual spending bills. Its year-end calendar of business listed dozens of pages of bills on matters large and small awaiting votes. Lots of floor time was spent on presidential nominations rather than on debating policy or amending legislation and voting on it.To help us get a better sense of what’s not going well in the Senate and what might be done to improve its functioning I have with me Professor Anthony J. Madonna. Tony is a professor at the University of Georgia. He is the author of many scholarly articles on Congress, and most recently published a piece for Political Research Quarterly titled, “Interbranch Warfare: Senate Amending Process and Restrictive House Rules.”

As listeners know, every two years the House of Representatives is reborn. After the November election each party convenes in Washington, DC. They discuss and debate how they will run their parties, and what their legislative priorities will be. And if they are members of the majority party, they will discuss and decide what the rules of the House should be. Then when they open the new Congress in January one of the first things they will do is to vote along party lines on a new rules package.A group of scholars and former House members recently released Revitalizing the House (Hoover Institution/Sunwater Institute), a report calling for the House to revise its rules. You can find that report on UnderstandingCongress.org.To discuss why the House should change its rules I have with me one of the authors, Dr. Philip Wallach. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is a colleague and a friend. At AEI he studies America’s separation of powers, with a focus on regulatory policy issues and the relationship between Congress and the administrative state. His latest book is Why Congress (Oxford University Press).Click here for the full transcript of the episode.

The topic of this episode is, “How can the House of Representatives better prepare new members?”My guest is Rep. Stephanie Bice, a Republican who has represented Oklahoma’s fifth congressional district for the past four years. She previously served in the Oklahoma state legislature from from 2014 to 2020. Prior to that, she worked in business for her family’s technology company and her own marketing firm.I first met Rep. Bice perhaps eight years ago. I was studying alcohol policy reform and she was deep in the process of helping rewrite some of Oklahoma’s outdated alcoholic beverage laws.Rep. Bice, I should add, sits on the House Appropriations Committee and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. And most relevant for this podcast, she also is on the Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over many matters including the onboarding of new members of Congress.

The topic of this special episode of the Understanding Congress podcast is a recent book by Michael Johnson and Jerome Climer. The book is titled, Fixing Congress: Restoring Power to the People (Morgan James Publishing, 2024). Mr. Johnson and Mr. Climer each have spent more than four decades in Washington, DC and have had stints working inside Congress.Today, I have with me one of the authors, Michael Johnson, who, I should add, is not to be confused with current House Speaker Mike Johnson.He has a long resume—he has spent about a half century in or around government, with stints in the White House, Congress, and private sector. Mike also coauthored a book with Mark Strand, Surviving Inside Congress (Congressional Institute, Inc., 2017), which we previously discussed on this podcast.

The topic of this episode is, "what is Congress' role in a contingent presidential election?"Two centuries ago, America had a contingent presidential election. No candidate got a majority of votes, and thus it fell to Congress to decide who got to be president. Might the United States have another contingent election? Certainly it is possible. Four of the past six presidential elections have been very close. In 2020, had 44,000 voters in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin picked Trump instead of Biden we would have had a tied election, with each candidate receiving 269 electoral votes.So what is Congress’s role in a contingent election? How does that work? To answer these questions I have with me my colleague, Dr. John Fortier. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies Congress and elections, election administration, election demographics, voting, and more. John is the coauthor of the books After the People Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College (AEI Press, 2020) and Absentee and Early Voting: Trends, Promises, and Perils (AEI Press, 2006). John also hosts The Voting Booth podcast.Kevin Kosar:Welcome to Understanding Congress, a podcast about the first branch of government. Congress is a notoriously complex institution, and few Americans think well of it. But Congress is essential to our republic. It is a place where our pluralistic society is supposed to work out its differences and come to agreement about what our laws should be.And that is why we are here: to discuss our national legislature and to think about ways to upgrade it so it can better serve our nation. I am your host, Kevin Kosar, and I’m a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington DC.John, welcome to the podcast.John Fortier:Thank you, Kevin. Pleasure to be here.Kevin Kosar:Let's start with a simple question. Why must a presidential candidate get 270 electoral votes in order to become the president?John Fortier:There's a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is that 270 is a majority of the electors that are possible to be cast.The longer answer is that there was a debate in the Constitutional Convention about how to elect the president, but it came sort of late in the process. And I would say the first thing that they needed to decide is what did Congress look like? And there were all sorts of debates and back and forth before a compromise was reached where essentially the House of Representatives was one that represented the people more broadly. The states would have a number of House representatives based on their population and the Senate would be equal in the states.Now when coming to the Electoral College—figuring out how to elect the president—there were two big principles. One, they had decided at this point that they wanted the president to be elected separately from the Congress. Not like a parliamentary system, not something coming out of the Congress. And secondly, that they were going to reflect that compromise in Congress.And so, the real number of 270, or the larger number of electors that are available, are basically all of the states have two electors for the senators that they have. And then they have a certain number of electors in the House of Representatives based on their, their House delegation and also D.C. votes. That's what gets you the total, but it is something of a compromise coming out of a compromise, and this is a majority of the votes that you need.Kevin Kosar:So it's a constitutional thing, it's not a statutory thing.Let’s imagine a scenario for the sake of illustrating the process: pretend it is mid-November of 2024, and we have Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump tied at 269 electoral votes each, or, that they each got fewer than 270 votes thanks to a third-party candidate garnering a handful of electoral votes. What happens next?John Fortier:You're right to point to two scenarios. One would be that there's a tie in the Electoral College, and in today's numbers that would be 269 to 269. Therefore, no one has a majority or perhaps there's a third party candidate who takes enough electors so that neither of the of the candidates gets to 270. Those are the types of situations which, down the road, are going to get you to a contingent election: one that doesn't go the regular way of counting the electors.Now, in the meantime, there are steps. The first, of course, is the casting of candidates. The votes by the electors themselves. We the people vote in November, but we are ultimately electing these electors. They are going to their state capitals in each of the 50 states in the District of Columbia, and they are casting ballots in mid-December. Those ballots are ultimately then sent on to Congress and are then going to be counted on January 6. This is typically a very simple process where votes are counted and in almost every case other than two in our history someone has had a majority of the electoral votes. If that is the case on January 6, we have an official president-elect. That person is going to take office on January 20. We similarly do the same thing with the vice presidential votes from the electors for the vice president.But if no one person gets 270 electoral votes, then we go into what is sometimes labeled a contingent election. And if all is clear, the House of Representatives will immediately convene to vote for a president, but they'll do so in an untraditional way. They'll essentially be voting by state delegation. Each state has one vote and then each state delegation, which could be made up of a bunch of people are somehow going to have to cast that ballot.Another interesting thing to note—I think that's important—is you do need to get a majority of states, not just a plurality. You need 26 of the 50 state delegations in the contingent election to elect a president. And there are a number of ways in which you might not get that. One possibility is if there are three candidates, another way is that we might have some delegations that are split and that wouldn't count to the total—assuming both those people voted according to party. And you might have a case where somebody has 25 delegations, somebody has 23, and two delegations are split. That's not enough to elect the president, so there's a potential for a deadlock here, and you don't necessarily easily get to the 26.One more thing lurking in the background, of course, is if for some reason that election is deadlocked or doesn't get to a conclusion, the vice president might be facing the same issue, where the vice president does not have a majority of the electoral votes. In that case, the Senate convenes and votes, but you need to get a majority of the senators to ultimately elect a vice president. Perhaps that might not happen either, but it is more likely that it will not divide in the same way.You could either have a vice president who's elected, no president, and get to January 20th and have that vice president take over. It is possible that both of the contingent elections are held up, in which case we'd go all the way to January 20th, and then we'd have to go down the line of succession, meaning the Speaker of the House in today's line would become president.So it's a complicated process, but there is a role for Congress, the House voting very differently than it typically does, and the Senate voting for the vice presidential candidate if there's no majority for either of these in the case of electing the vice president.Kevin Kosar:As a follow up, we have the House having to vote for the president, the Senate having to vote for the vice president. Imagine in the House, we have a state that has 10 representatives—six of them prefer Mr. Trump, four of them prefer Mr. Biden. Does their state then get counted towards the presidential total, or do they have to be unanimous? Do we know?John Fortier:This would be likely only the case where there are three presidential candidates who are being considered. With the 12th Amendment, the House can only consider the top three candidates. They can't consider anybody else. That was important in 1824 when there was fourth major political candidate who couldn't be considered.So, if there were a state that had nine reps and it was four to three to two, the House is at times believed that maybe the four would prevail, but we're not absolutely sure about that. So the House might have a role. I'll leave it at that.Kevin Kosar:You've already indicated that we could end up in a peculiar situation where if the House can't come to agreement, the Senate could—in theory—come to an agreement about who gets to be the vice president. Would that vice president succeed? Would he become the...