Political Science 3314
Spring 2006
Exam #3

 
I.  Multiple choice.  Fill in the letter of the correct answer on your answer sheet.  Two points each. (An asterisk denotes the correct answer)

 1.  If you were in charge of implementing Karl Rove’s long-term political strategy (as described by Catherine Rudder), you would try to
            a. immediately slash federal spending across the board in order to cut the deficit.
            *b. continue the “borrow and spend” policies that have produced large deficits.
            c. urge a pullout of forces in Iraq because the drain on the budget is too great.
            d. increase taxes overall but cut them for middle-income taxpayers. 

2.  A “blue slip” is used to indicate
            a. presidential support for a bill before Congress.
            b. censure or expulsion of a member of Congress.
            *c. A senator’s support for or opposition to a nominee.
            d. that a bill has implications for national security. 

3.  The original impetus for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security came from
            *a. members of Congress.
            b. President Bush.
            c. the Blue Ribbon Commission on Terrorism.
            d. Mayor Giuliani of New York. 

4.  The term “Whitewater” refers to
            *a. a land deal in Arkansas.
            b. an apartment building in DC.
            c. a smuggling operation in New England.
            d. where Vince Foster’s body was found. 

5.  In lecture, Prof. Walcott criticized the way Binder and Maltzman operationalized which variable?
            a. partisan forces.
            b. temporal forces.
            c. ideological forces.
            *d. presidential forces. 

6.  According to Rae and Campbell, the perspective that “has the most explanatory power” in telling us why Senators voted as they did on impeachment is:
            *a. Senators voted along partisan lines.
            b. Senators voted their principles, not their party affiliation.
            c. Senators were trying to protect their reputations with voters.
            d. Senators resented the fact that the House pursued the issue. 

7.  According to Loomis and Schiller, the phenomenon of the “legislator as enterprise” in the House in recent years has
            a. made legislators ever more self-sufficient and independent.
            b. given interest groups almost complete control over the agenda.
            c. resulted in massive waste and the temptation that produces scandals.
            *d. been subordinated to party loyalty due to increased partisanship. 

8.  A “House manager” is
            a. a career employee of the House of Representatives.
            b. a member of the majority party leadership in the House.
            c. the sponsor of a bill under consideration in the House.
            *d. a House member who explains impeachment charges to the Senate. 

9.  In the final Senate vote on President Clinton’s impeachment, the Senate could not muster 2/3 on either charge.  The voting outcomes were:
            a. majorities favoring conviction on both charges.
            *b. neither charge receiving majority support.
            c. a majority supporting the perjury charge but not the obstruction charge.
            d. a majority supporting the obstruction charge but not the perjury charge. 

10.  One important legislative result of the crisis of 9/11 was
            a. the No Child Left Behind Act.
            b. the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2001.
            *c. the USA Patriot Act.
            d. the merger of the FBI and CIA. 

11.  Prof. Walcott’s long-winded and seemingly irrelevant riff on the history of Title IX at least had the virtue of illustrating this congressional phenomenon:
            *a. delegated legislation.
            b. tactical filibuster.
            c. the role of the House Rules Committee.
            d. the power of the minority leadership. 


II.  Short answer.  Describe or define seven of the following and explain why each is important for understanding Congress.  Four points each.

1.  Composition of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 and 1996

The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 had a majority of Democrats, while in 1996 it had a majority of Republicans – in other words, in each case a majority was opposed to the president in partisan terms.  However, in 1974 both the Democrats and Republicans had some moderates, including a few who voted most often with the opposition.  In 1996, the committee was much more strongly partisan.  It also featured members from safe seats who were hearing strong partisan messages from their constituents.  The result in 1997 through 1999 was a committee less able to deliberate in the case of Clinton than it had been in the case of Nixon. 

2.  Gramm-Kennedy Plan
With the Senate locked in a partisan battle over procedures for the Clinton impeachment trial, two highly partisan Senators, Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) got together to propose a compromise.  Their plan called for a two-week trial, no new evidence, written questioning of the two sides by Senators, then a debate over whether to call witnesses.  If there were witnesses, they would first be deposed; only after another vote could they be brought in to testify live.  Each side made compromises, but the major concession was the Democrats’ willingness to allow the possibility of witnesses.  The plan was accepted and was viewed as a triumph of bipartisanship and Senate civility. 

3.  ownership society
Republicans, especially White House political strategist Karl Rove, have sought to find a way to permanently overturn the legacy of FDR, the New Deal, and the “welfare state” through legislation.  That legacy was sustained through relatively high, progressive taxes and expensive government programs aimed at the Democrats’ “base.”  To counter it, Republicans have, among other things, tried to pass policies that encourage investment and thus dependence more on the success of the private economy and less on government.  The term often given for this is the “ownership society.”  These legislative efforts have not always been successful, as in the case of individual social security accounts.

4.  intermestic policy areas
The “two presidencies” hypothesis claims that presidents fare much better in foreign and defense policy than in domestic policy because the latter is so controlled by powerful interest groups and vulnerable to partisan conflict.  In the foreign area, presidents have more formal powers and, because they are acting on behalf of the whole nation, can rise above politics-as-usual.  Thus presidents will, over time, tend to prefer foreign policy.  However, many “foreign” issues now are simultaneously “domestic” ones as well – like oil or immigration.  These “intermestic” issues make foreign policy less attractive because they bring in the interest group politics and partisanship. 

5.  impact of partisan polarization on judicial nominations
Partisan polarization has led to greater conflict over judicial nominations, which in turn has caused (a) the time between nomination and confirmation to get longer, and (b) the probability of successful confirmation to get smaller.  This is true even without divided government, because it only takes 41 votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster or the threat of one.  Senators are also more likely now to turn in negative blue slips, and Judiciary Committee chairs are less respectful of Senatorial courtesy toward opposition party Senators on district court nominations.  The main policy impact has been to let too many seats go unfilled, producing backlog and the complaint that “justice delayed is justice denied.” 

6.  “legislator as enterprise”
Loomis and Schiller use this term to describe the fact that any member of the House or Senate today has both staff and campaign resources that are extensive enough to make her or him worthy of being seen as a small organization.  Legislators have substantial budgets to pay both personal staff in DC and staffers in their districts or states, thus expanding their outreach within Congress and to constituents.  Committee chairs have additional staffs attached to their committees.  At the same time, members have extensive fundraising and campaigning staffs, funded by campaign contributions.  People can move back and forth between these staffs.  However, the book points out that partisan polarization has limited the importance of all of this because the power and freedom of individual legislators is somewhat diminished 

7.  “high crimes and misdemeanors”
The Constitution lists these beside treason and bribery as grounds for impeachment.  The words are vague and there exists no definitive definition of the term.  Hamilton contended that they meant violation of a “public trust,” but even that is rather vague.  In practice, there is nothing to keep Congress or its members from arguing that almost any presidential misdeed is a “high crime or misdemeanor,” just as there is little to stop opponents from arguing the opposite.  In the Clinton impeachment case, the vagueness of these terms laid the groundwork for the intense debates about whether the President had committed an impeachable offense.

8.  deliberation (in the House during impeachment)
Deliberation is what the framers of the Constitution hoped that Congress, especially the Senate, would do in considering legislation.  It is usually understood as reasoning together or working together to solve problems.  It can be distinguished from debate, a more oppositional process – though the two can also be seen as complementing one another.  Rae and Campbell argue that in today’s polarized Congress, deliberation and debate are basically ritual – where partisan voting is the norm, there is little room for genuine discussion or persuasion.

9.  president as Chief Legislator
The Constitution gives the president only limited legislative power – mainly the veto.  However in the 20th century, because of the growth of government, the demand for central leadership to set the political agenda caused presidents to step forward as the main initators of policy.  The annual State of the Union message has become the focal point for presidential proposals.  Additionally, presidents have acquired resources that aid them in persuading Congress to follow their lead.  They can appeal to public opinion, they have their own lobbyists, and they have partisan ties to members of their party in Congress.  Many studies find that presidents have considerable success with Congress, though this is hard to measure.  Most ultimately conclude that presidential influences is “at the margins.”

 

 

Political Science 3314
Spring 2006
Exam #2

I.  Multiple choice.  Fill in the letter of the correct answer on your answer sheet.  2 points each.   (An asterisk denotes the correct answer)

1.  The “king of the hill” rule determines
            a. who appoints committee chairs in the House.
           * b. which of a series of conflicting amendments will prevail in the House.
            c. how the Speaker is chosen.
            d. whether House or Senate bills will survive conference committee. 

2.  The period of greatest subcommittee power in the House occurred between
            a. 1946 and 1974.
            *b. 1974 and 1980.
            c. 1980 and 1994.
            d. 1995 and the present. 

3.  The period of “institutionalized pluralism” was also the period of
            a. the Democrats’ “revolution” after Watergate.
            b. the Contract with America.
            c. boss rule in the late 19th century.
           * d. the “textbook Congress.” 

4.  When Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist proposed the “nuclear option,” he was trying to
            *a. prevent Democrats from filibustering nominations.
            b. end an impasse over the federal budget.
            c. warn Iran that it should not develop certain weapons.
            d. reduce the power of Senate committee chairs. 

5.  Harry Reid is or was
            a. the Senate Majority Leader.
           * b. the Senate Minority Leader.
            c. a former Senate Majority leader who resigned in the face of scandal.
            d. a House Majority leader during the days of the “textbook Congress.” 

6.  The Contract with America was important because it
            a. bound the president and both houses of Congress to the same promises.
            b. resulted in far-reaching changes in the Constitution.
           *c. was an effort to nationalize House elections in 1994.
            d. led to significant internal reform in the Senate. 

7.  In today’s Congress, a Southern Democrat is most likely to
            a. be conservative on most issues.
            *b. hold views very similar to a Northern Democrat.
            c. be liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues.
            d. be a committee chair, due to seniority. 

8.  The most important qualification for becoming President Pro Tem of the Senate is
            a. to have been elected vice president of the U.S.
            *b. to be in the majority and have seniority.
            c. to have the voting support of a majority of Senators.           
            d. to be someone whom the president is willing to appoint. 

9. An important power that the Speaker of the House has but the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t have is
            a. to invoke cloture.
            b. to assign bills to committees.
            c. to chair the Appropriations Committee.
            *d. to appoint members to the Rules Committee. 

10.  The decision not to let bills come to the floor unless they had majority support within the Republican caucus was made by
            a. Newt Gingrich.
            b. Tom DeLay.
            *c. Dennis Hastert.
            d. Jim Wright. 

11.  The following House members were all subjects of scandal.  Which one is still a member of the House?
            *a. Tom DeLay
            b. Randy “Duke” Cunningham
            c. Jim Wright
            d. Bob Livingston

1.  cloture.  A motion for cloture is the only way to shut off a Senate filibuster.  To be successful, the motion needs a “supermajority” of 60 votes.  This has led some to observe that at least on important issues, the Senate is not a majoritarian body because a simple majority cannot stop a filibuster and a filibuster can kill a bill.  Therefore, normally some degree of bipartisan support is required for a bill to pass the Senate.  (Smith & Gamm, 200-201, Loomis & Schiller, 102-108, lecture)

 

2. Nancy Pelosi.  Nancy Pelosi (-CA) is the minority leader of the House of Representatives.  She is the first woman to hold this position and, if the Democrats win a majority soon, she will be the first female speaker.  She is considered a member of her party’s liberal bloc, and her selection was somewhat controversial because of this, since she needs to hold together party members across an ideological spectrum.  She is known as a tough fighter who is willing to challenge Republicans.  (Schickler & Pearson, 213-214)

 

3.  whip.  Whips are members of their parties’ leadership in both the House and Senate, ranking just below the majority or minority leader.  They head up a “whip system” that consists of deputy whips and numerous others.  The main functions of the whip and the whip system are to communicate the wishes of the leaders to the party membership, to collect information on the voting intentions of the members, and to mobilize the members for floor votes, making sure that everyone possible is instructed and votes. (Loomis & Schiller, ch.5, lecture)

 

4. conditional party government.  The phrase “conditional party government” describes a circumstance where the parties in a legislative body are both polarized and highly cohesive.  Under these circumstances (and only then), party leaders can exert strong leadership to the point of trying to govern without the cooperation of the minority party.  Thus they can seek policies that reflect the average preferences of party members, rather than the average preferences of members of the body as a whole. (Smith & gamm, 182-183, Aldrich & Rohde, 251)

 

5.  Blue Dog Democrats.  The Democrats who call themselves “Blue Dogs” are moderate-to-conservative House members.  They can be key to cross-party coalitions as they were, for instance, when they allied with Republicans to pass President Reagan’s first budget.  Today, however, with Speaker Hastert uninterested in coalitions, the Blue Dogs tend to be loyal members of their party’s caucus.  (Schickler & Pearson, 213-220)

 

6. standing committee.  Standing committees are the permanent committees of the House and Senate.  Each body has about 20 such committees.  They have jurisdiction over particular policy issues, their composition reflects the partisan balance of the body as a whole, and their chairs are chosen by the majority party, which usually respects seniority, though not always.  The committees provide division of labor and specialization in the production and transmission of information to the body.  The committees further divide and specialize their work when they create subcommittees.(Loomis & Schiller, ch. 8)

 

II.  Short answer

1.  cloture.  A motion for cloture is the only way to shut off a Senate filibuster.  To be successful, the motion needs a “supermajority” of 60 votes.  This has led some to observe that at least on important issues, the Senate is not a majoritarian body because a simple majority cannot stop a filibuster and a filibuster can kill a bill.  Therefore, normally some degree of bipartisan support is required for a bill to pass the Senate.  (Smith & Gamm, 200-201, Loomis & Schiller, 102-108, lecture) 

2. Nancy Pelosi.  Nancy Pelosi (-CA) is the minority leader of the House of Representatives.  She is the first woman to hold this position and, if the Democrats win a majority soon, she will be the first female speaker.  She is considered a member of her party’s liberal bloc, and her selection was somewhat controversial because of this, since she needs to hold together party members across an ideological spectrum.  She is known as a tough fighter who is willing to challenge Republicans.  (Schickler & Pearson, 213-214)

 3.  whip.  Whips are members of their parties’ leadership in both the House and Senate, ranking just below the majority or minority leader.  They head up a “whip system” that consists of deputy whips and numerous others.  The main functions of the whip and the whip system are to communicate the wishes of the leaders to the party membership, to collect information on the voting intentions of the members, and to mobilize the members for floor votes, making sure that everyone possible is instructed and votes. (Loomis & Schiller, ch.5, lecture) 

4. conditional party government.  The phrase “conditional party government” describes a circumstance where the parties in a legislative body are both polarized and highly cohesive.  Under these circumstances (and only then), party leaders can exert strong leadership to the point of trying to govern without the cooperation of the minority party.  Thus they can seek policies that reflect the average preferences of party members, rather than the average preferences of members of the body as a whole. (Smith & gamm, 182-183, Aldrich & Rohde, 251) 

5.  Blue Dog Democrats.  The Democrats who call themselves “Blue Dogs” are moderate-to-conservative House members.  They can be key to cross-party coalitions as they were, for instance, when they allied with Republicans to pass President Reagan’s first budget.  Today, however, with Speaker Hastert uninterested in coalitions, the Blue Dogs tend to be loyal members of their party’s caucus.  (Schickler & Pearson, 213-220) 

6. standing committee.  Standing committees are the permanent committees of the House and Senate.  Each body has about 20 such committees.  They have jurisdiction over particular policy issues, their composition reflects the partisan balance of the body as a whole, and their chairs are chosen by the majority party, which usually respects seniority, though not always.  The committees provide division of labor and specialization in the production and transmission of information to the body.  The committees further divide and specialize their work when they create subcommittees.(Loomis & Schiller, ch. 8) 

7.  reaction of Appropriations Committee to 1974 “revolution”  The “revolution of 1974 consisted of a large influx of young, liberal Democrats elected to the House in the wake of Watergate.  They democratized the selection of committee chairs, empowered subcommittees, and changed the budget process substantially.  Surprisingly, all of this had relatively little effect on the moderate, bipartisan culture that had grown within the committee.  Indeed, the turmoil around the committee may have driven it to try to be even more cohesive.  The committee continued to have great success in having its recommendations accepted by the full House. (Gordon, 276-277, lecture) 

8.  interest dominance on the agriculture committees.  Members of Congress tend to seek appointments to committees whose work affects their constituents.  Thus, for instance, representatives of districts or states that contain much agriculture will often seek seats on the agriculture committee in order to advance or protect their constituents’ interests, thus enhancing their reelection chances.  The result is that many committees, such as agriculture, become dominated by representatives of one set of interests (e.g., farmers, food processors) and not others (e.g. consumers).  Interest groups representing those dominant interests are highly welcome on such committees.  (Loomis & Schiller, 152-3, lecture) 

9.  conservative coalition.  During the days of the “textbook Congress” (late ‘40s to early ‘60s), Democrats almost always controlled both houses.  However, that did not mean that liberals ran things, as there were many conservative Democrats, largely from southern states, who often voted with the Republicans.  This alliance came to be called the conservative coalition, and it dominated Congress thoughout much of the 1950s.  In the House it controlled the Rules Committee, and in both houses it benefited from the the southerners’ long seniority.  The turmoil of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s diminished its strength, and more recently realignment has virtually eliminated the old-fashioned “southern Democrats.”  (Loomis & Schiller, 92-93, 156-157, lecture)

Political Science 3314
Spring 2006
Exam #1 

I.  Multiple choice.  Fill in the letter of the correct answer on your answer sheet.  For each question there is only one correct answer.  (2 points each)
An asterisk (*) denotes the correct answer.

1.  In your text, Rep. Margaret Margolies-Mezvinsky was featured as an example of a representative willing to be a “trustee.”  In her case, the outcome of that was
            a. under pressure from the White House, she resigned.
            b. she has moved into the leadership ranks among House Democrats.
            *c. she was beaten in the next election.
            d. she left the House to run successfully for the Senate. 

2.  Political scientists use the “sophomore surge” to measure
            *a. the importance of incumbency in elections.
            b. the power of younger Senators over legislation.
            c. the degree of party discipline in both houses of Congress.
            d. the ability of congressional parties to keep their campaign promises. 

3.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Gibbons v. Ogden enhanced the power of Congress by
            a. ruling that the national government was supreme over the states.
            b. limiting the president’s veto power.
            c. refusing to allow members to be sued while in session.
            *d. granting Congress a broad power to regulate interstate commerce. 

4.  A “527” is
            a. a particular kind of private bill in Congress.
            *b. an organization that spends money on campaigns.
            c. another name for a quorum call before a vote in the House.
            d. a special-interest amendment to a bill. 

5.  An important element of the Carville-Begala campaign finance reform proposal is
            a. strong regulations on lobbyists’ conduct.
            b. pay cuts for members of the House and Senate.
            *c. no limits at all on campaign contributions.
            d. term limits on both Representatives and Senators. 

6.  Partisan polarization
            a. affects only the Senate, not the House.
            b. reflects the extreme polarization of the electorate.
            c. arises because neither party has a clear platform.
            *d. is linked to the fact that so many incumbents are safe. 

7.  In the last few years, the House has seen an increase in
            a. turnover among Republicans.
            *b. the number of careerists.
            c. the power of the bipartisan “centrist caucus.”
            d. members who declare themselves independents. 

8.  The “textbook” Congress flourished during
            a. the latter part of the 19th century.
            b. the earliest years of the Republic.
            *c. the middle of the 20th century.
            d. the years since 1994. 

9.  The Buckley v. Valeo decision held that Congress could not place limits on
            *a. spending on behalf of candidates.
            b. hard money campaign contributions.
            c. who may run for Congress.
            d. the content of political advertisements. 

10.  An incumbent Senator’s likelihood of reelection is roughly
            a. 90%
            *b. 75%
            c. 50%
            d. 35% 

11.  A “hold” is
            *a. something a Senator does to prevent consideration of a bill.
            b. something the president does when he wants to kill a bill.
            c. how House members keep bills from leaving committee.
            d. a finding by the courts regarding the meaning of a law. 

II.  Short answer.

1.  why public opinion toward Congress tends to be negative

Hibbing and his colleagues contend that Americans disapprove of Congress because they fundamentally don’t like politics.  Congress, because it is the most openly “political” of the branches, is the most disliked.  Americans think that people should fundamentally agree about policy issues and reach consensus, so the processes of debate (conflict) and compromise (“selling out”) are unpopular.  The more active Congress is in passing legislation or checking presidential power, the less citizens approve of it.

 2.  individualism in the Senate

Sinclair observes that by the mid-1970s, due in part to environmental change (proliferation of media, interest groups, etc.), the Senate had become “individualist.”  By that is meant that every Senator now feels entitled to participate on any issue and to become an outside spokesperson on any topic.  This results also in Senators exploiting their prerogatives, e.g. to block nominations, place holds on bills, offer amendments from the floor, and filibuster.  Individualism, combined with increased partisanship, thus slows the Senate in its work.  Cooperation between majority and minority leaders is required to get things done.

 3.  BICRA

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed in 2002 as an attempt to remedy the failings of FECA, which had become evident in the soft money explosion of the 1990s.  The main things it did were to outlaw soft money contributions to parties for national elections, limit issue ads in periods prior to elections, and raise limits on hard money contributions.  It did not regulate independent expenditures by outside groups, provide public financing of elections, or reform the Federal Elections Commission.  Although it had the effect of increasing hard money contributions, it left a loophole for outside groups, particularly “527s” to spend unlimited money, which they did in 2004 – leading many to conclude that the “hydraulic” effect of money was still functional.  The act, generally supported more by Democrats than Republicans, may actually be more helpful to Republicans, since they are better at raising hard money.

 4.  how interest groups address members’ uncertainties

Members of Congress live in a world of uncertainties, and are attentive to anyone who can make that world more certain and safe for them.  Interest groups can reduce reelection uncertainty by funding campaigns and can reduce uncertainty about constituency opinion to the extent that they represent constituents.  They can reduce uncertainty about the legislative process and facilitate passing bills by providing information and helping to bring together coalitions.  They can reduce uncertainty about the probable or actual effects of policies by providing expertise and feedback.  Thus members come to rely on interest groups and view them as good and necessary.

 5.  earmarks

An earmark is a provision that a legislator adds to a spending bill.  It identifies a particular recipient of funds – sometimes a private firm, sometimes a non-profit or government entity – as a political favor.  Usually, the beneficiary of such an earmark is the member’s constituent or a significant campaign contributor.  Since earmarks don’t pass through the same committee review as regular spending, they may be unnecessary or inefficient as public policy.  They also tend to add to the sum total of government spending.  Critics view earmarks as a particularly glaring example of the excess influence of interest groups, and some are calling for limiting or eliminating them.

6.  Constitutional model of collective representation

Madison and the framers of the Constitution were most concerned that the legislative process be one of deliberation, where thoughtful discussion and wisdom would prevail.  The bicameral legislature and indirect representation in the Senate were expected to produce such deliberation.  This understanding is consistent with a trustee orientation, and reflects a certain distrust of those who would prefer to be delegates.  This model is usually contrasted with the adversarial model, which stresses strong parties and responsiveness to public opinion – more like the House than like the Senate.

 7.  why the incumbent advantage is less important now

Oppenheimer argues that incumbent advantage in House elections, as measured, for instance, by “sophomore surge” and “retirement slump,” is less crucial than it was in the 1980s.  By incumbent advantage, he means those factors associated with “personal incumbency,” such as name recognition and a record of service to the district.  The reason for this, he argues, is that districts have become more heavily partisan, which results in personal incumbency simply being less important because any acceptable candidate from the dominant party would do about as well.  Personal incumbency factors tend to matter more in competitive districts.

 8.  access

Interest groups give campaign contributions in hopes that they and their lobbyists will be able to at least gain access to elected representatives.  Access simply means that their lobbyists will be heard and understood, not that the representative will always do what they ask.  Access, in other words, is not necessarily influence, though under the right circumstances it can become influence (i.e., changing the beliefs or intent of a legislator).  Defenders of the interest group community often make the case that legislators’ votes are not “bought,” but only access is “bought” by campaign contributions.

 9.  Tom DeLay

DeLay, a member of the House from Texas, was a top lieutenant of Newt Gingrich during the Republican takeover of the House and the subsequent GOP “revolution” of the mid-1990s.  He was a Republican whip, and moved up to Majority Leader under Speaker Dennis Hastert.  He is known for his ideological toughness and ability to discipline the ranks of House Republicans, and for leading mid-term redistricting in Texas.  Recently he has been indicted for campaign money laundering and has been associated with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.  No longer Majority Leader, he still is a member of the House.