Data Focus: This measure shows whether bills are developed through the traditional committee process, which allows for more input from rank-and-file members, rather than a process primarily controlled by party leaders.

Data Findings: Committees in both the House and Senate have been very active in reporting bills. House committees reported 487 bills in the 115th Congress, the highest among any years in the index. Senate committees reported 296 bills, the third-highest among the index’s comparative years, and much higher than the lull seen during the 112th and 113th Congresses.

Data Focus: When bills are considered on the floor, members of both parties should have the opportunity to offer amendments. This is especially important for the minority party, which sometimes resorts to procedural tactics to stall bills when cut out of the amendment process.

Data Findings: The current Senate considered the lowest number of amendments of any of the years tracked in the index. The Senate considered only 179 amendments in total between January 2017 and the end of March 2018. Comparatively, the 114th considered 535, the 113th considered 299, and the 112th considered 312. The Senate during the 111th Congress considered almost four times as many as the 115th and the 110th considered more than six times as many amendments.

The distribution of amendments between the majority and minority has been out of step with recent norms as well. In the past, amendments tend to have been split evenly between majority and minority, or perhaps a 60-40 split in favor of the majority. Since January 2017, however, 72 percent of amendments considered were sponsored by the majority Republicans and just 28 percent came from the minority Democrats. In the first quarter of 2018, of the 20 amendments considered, only one amendment was offered by a member of the minority.

Data Focus: The amendment process in the House is typically governed by predetermined rules specific to each bill: open rules allows all members to offer amendments on the floor; closed rules allows none; structured rules allows only those specified by the Rules Committee.

Data Findings: Members of the House have been mostly closed off from offering amendments to legislation this Congress. Since January 2017, 56 percent of rules were closed rules, meaning no amendments could be offered. This is the highest percentage of closed rules among the years in the index.

Forty-four percent of rules were structured, meaning the only amendments that could be offered were those pre-approved by the majority-controlled Rules Committee. When structured rules were in place, 49 percent were offered by Democrats, the minority, 40 percent were offered by Republicans, the majority, and 11 percent were offered on a bipartisan basis. Zero rules were open. Only one other comparative congress, the 111th, had zero open rules at this point in the two-year period.

Data Focus: This measure gives some sense of how diligently authorizing committees in Congress are working to provide oversight and review of government programs, and to renew, adjust, or eliminate authorizations for their funding.

Data Findings: Over time, spending on programs with expired authorizations has grown as a percent over overall spending. From FY 2014 through FY 2016, funding for programs with expired authorizations made up one quarter or more of all discretionary spending. This finding suggests that the number of federal programs that have not been reauthorized by congressional committees has grown since 1995, when these programs made up about 17 percent of spending.