Congress The Nafta example essay topic

Congress is many times perceived only as a representative assembly of 540 individuals (435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 senators, 4 advocates, and 1 delegate commissioner). Yet, there is another very important part of Congress in which bills become laws. This part of Congress is made up of principles, structures, and traditions that are very complex which make up the law making process. Many times someone thinks that Congress is only handled on Capital Hill, but the performance of Congress is also exercised in many different districts in every state all across the country. Davidson and Oleszek, in their book Congress & its Members try to further educate their readers and explain that there is more to Congress then its members. They do this by expressing their theory of how Congress is actually two Congresses.

This idea of a dual congress has been shown ever since the nation's laws were formed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In a book written by Wolpe and Levine called Lobbying Congress there are examples of the dual role congress shown through case studies. Two cases that I will be representing show clearly that Congress is in fact two Congresses. In 1993 President Bill Clinton tried to convince Congress to approve the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) despite the major oppositions from his own party. President Clinton's reason for trying to push NAFTA was to try and improve the nation's economic policy while the nation was unrest. Before NAFTA was even voted on, it went through many processes to ensure it didn't violate any other laws.

After President Clinton gave Congress the NAFTA implementing bill, they said they would review NAFTA under a fast-track procedure. This process would disallow any amendments and call for a vote in both offices within ninety days after the agreement was introduced for certification. Three environmental groups then filed a lawsuit because they said that NAFTA "may cause environmental injury and that the administration therefore was obligated to conduct a comprehensive review of the environmental impact of NAFTA" (Wolpe and Levine, 117). Three judges of the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the president's administration would not have to provide a study of the environmental effects of NAFTA under the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Abner Mikva said, "The president's actions are not the 'agency actions' and thus cannot be reviewed" (Wolpe and Levine, 118). NAFTA created a split within the Democratic Party.

Very respected members of the Democratic Party were opposed to NAFTA and expressed interest of voting against it. If President Clinton planned to pass NAFTA he was going to have to get members of the Republican Party to vote for it. Clinton did something unusual when he said, "I hope to discourage NAFTA opponents from using this issue against pro-NAFTA members, regardless of party, in the [1994] election" (Wolpe and Levine, 124). President Clinton did many things to make the Republican Party feel more comfortable to vote for NAFTA, which also made him look confident that NAFTA was a good idea.

One of the first thing president Clinton did is, he appointed Republicans in high positions of NAFTA. These officials included representative Republican Bill Frenkel as special advisor and Republican William Daley as chief lobbyist of NAFTA. President Clinton also made many public statements that warned people if they did not vote for NAFTA then, it would have a bad effect on "his ability to press for further trade liberalization around the world, discrediting the United States as a beacon of free trade" (Wolpe and Levine, 121). He also stated that "it would limit my ability to argue that the Asians should open their markets more" (Wolpe and Levine, 121). Along with making public statements president Clinton also worked hard behind the scenes to get Republicans to vote his way on the NAFTA issue. He was having face-to-face meetings with members who were undecided on which way to vote and made numerous phone calls to try to get members who were on top of the fence to cross over.

President Clinton also cut deals with specific people along with cutting deals on issues that lawmakers were particularly concerned with. In the end the bill was passed and President Clinton signed it into law on December 8. "The margin of victory in the Senate was larger than in the House partly because senators represent an entire state and were therefore less susceptible to the pressure from within smaller congressional districts that caused many House members to vote no. Clinton once again owed the victory more to opposition Republicans than to members of his own party" (Wolpe and Levine, 124-125). These examples show that the law making process can put limitations that could either hurt or help the bill being introduced, and can sometimes take longer than it was first intended to. There are so many other laws that it is hard not to violate the ones already in place.

This also shows that the representation part of Congress is also very important because, you might have to rely on the opposite party if you want to get something passed. On certain issues it is proven that one side of Congress may be more easily influenced by the pressures of smaller congressional districts, which can affect the way they vote on certain issues. In 1994 lawmakers passed a crime package that was aimed at decreasing the violence in the United States. The major controversial issue of this package was the idea of gun control.

The public was in support of gun control issues according to opinion polls while the support in Congress was uncertain because of the pressures felt from gun rights advocates. In 1993 Congress passed the Brady Bill, "which called for a waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases" (Wolpe and Levine, 127). In 1993 the House had a hard time gathering support around the one wide-range bill and instead decided to pass a number of smaller bills to try and decrease crime, along with the amendment to ban the sale, construction, or possession of some assault weapons. "Senator Dennis De Concini, a supporter of the ban said he would not be surprised if the conference committee killed the provision, given the strong influence of the NRA in the house" (Wolpe and Levine, 128). President Clinton's lobbying had increased which urged speedy congressional actions. He hosted pep rallies, meetings, and would make phone calls that urged "the House to support the legislation.

Assault weapons were not designed for sport. They were specifically designed for war and have no place on the streets of America" (Wolpe and Levine, 130), stressed Clinton. Work was also being done to mobilize support for ban in congressional districts, yet "most members said the pressure at home was fiercest from gun rights advocates, including voters who were confused about whether the ban would affect their guns" (Wolpe and Levine, 131). A final version was agreed upon in the House and Senate that included a ban on certain semiautomatic assault weapons. This victory can be linked back to the Police organizations and U.S. Conference of Mayors who were in large the main supporters of the bill. Clinton also "took his message straight to the people, seeking strength in Congress with appeals outside its marble halls" (Wolpe and Levine, 133).

There was also speculation on why some senators were opposed to the bill. It can be generalized in three letters, NRA. This example along with the NAFTA issue shows that the law making process can have an affect on a bill when it is first being introduced. One has to make sure it does not violate any other law that is already in place, which may in turn make for a need of many provisions.

The representation part of Congress is also addressed here. It looked as if the gun control proposals were not going to do so good because of the high influence of the NRA in the House yet strong lobbying done by president Clinton again helped pass a very important issue on his agenda. "Confidence in Clinton's handling of crime had bounced up to 42 percent from 29 percent just a month earlier" (Wolpe and Levine, 134). In conclusion, through the cases of NAFTA and the anti-crime package it is shown that Congress is more than just its 540 members. These cases show us that in order for anything to get passed it takes many law making procedures, which includes making sure other laws are not being violated. Congress members are very important because they are the ones who can either make or brake a bill, depending on the issue and support.

Depending on the issue, one part of Congress may be more easily influenced by smaller congressional districts because they know that it's in the voter's hands on whether or not they will be reelected. Therefore, their constituency is very important to them unlike some members who represent an entire state. Wolpe and Levine's book Lobbying Congress supports the idea that Congress plays a dual role, which supports the idea that there are in fact two Congresses. "The unique character of Congress arises directly from its dual role as a representative assembly and lawmaking body" (Davidson and Oleszek, 4).