American Indian Policy in Committee: Structure, Party, Ideology, and Salience

This research explores the motivations for action on American Indian policy in the committees and subcommittees of both chambers of the U.S. Congress from 1947 to 1998. The goal is to discover which attributes lead committees to report American Indian bills to the full chamber. In order to achieve this goal, I first examine the reigning theories of committee action. Legislative scholars have long recognized that committee motivations are different than those of their parent chambers (Fenno 1973, Deering and Smith 1997). Moreover, varying principals create differences between committees as well (Rohde 1995, Maltzman and Smith 1995). The traditional emphasis on constituency and parent chamber demands, however, leaves committee behavior inadequately explained in American Indian policy—a field where constituency interest remains uniform and small and the parent chambers voice few demands, yet the amount and nature of legislative attention varies greatly. After taking a closer look at the committees which have held jurisdiction over matters relating to American Indians, and from a comparison with the general theories, I develop a set of hypotheses to explain the actions of Indian affairs committees. I argue that salience, party, institutional structure, and ideology play a more significant role in the development of American Indian policy at the committee level than most general theories of committee action would lead us to expect. I use regression analysis to provide empirical tests of these hypotheses and draw some tentative conclusions regarding the relationship between major and minor policy at the committee level. These conclusions contribute to congressional scholarship by offering explanations for committee behavior in a minor policy arena. In addition, they offer the field of American Indian policy a working model of legislative decision making for future exploration and refinement.