113th United States Congress

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal:Congress
Features of Congress

Background
Federal Election CommissionDemocratic Congressional Campaign CommitteeNational Republican Congressional CommitteeFiling requirements for congressional candidatesClasses of United States SenatorsFilling vacancies in the U.S. SenatePresident Pro Tempore of the SenateUnited States Speaker of the HouseFilibuster

Sessions
113th Congress112th Congress111th Congress110th Congress

Analysis
Lifetime voting recordsNet worth of United States Senators and RepresentativesStaff salaries of United States Senators and RepresentativesNational Journal vote ratings
114th Congress
112th Congress
The 113th United States Congress is the current meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The 113th Congress first convened in Washington, D.C. on January 3, 2013, and will conclude on January 3, 2015. It is the most diverse Congress in the nation's history, owing to a record number of newly elected women and minorities. Six years after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) was elected the first female Speaker, the chamber's Democrats broke ground once again when they swore in 58 women and 72 minorities, making it the first ever congressional caucus from either party or chamber where Caucasian men do not make up the majority.[1]

New members, including the first Buddhist senator, first Hindu representative and first open bisexual female representative, were elected on November 6, 2012.[1]

The appointments of Tim Scott and Mo Cowan marked the first time in United States history where two black senators served in the U.S. Senate at the same time (Cowan did not seek the seat in the special election).[2]

In addition to its diversity, the composition of the 113th Congress is notable for its inexperience. In February 2013, the Washington Post published a story exploring how the current generation of congressional committee leaders see the dismantlement of traditional lawmaking procedure, and their roles within it, as a consequence of Congress' recent bulge of freshmen members. Reinforcing their theory, the report cited that over one third of House members, and 32 of the Senate's 100 members, had "served two years or less."[3]

Events

ACA cancellations

When the Affordable Care Act (ACA or commonly referred to as Obamacare) was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, there was much debate about what would happen to citizens' existing plans under the new healthcare reform.[4] One statement made repeatedly by the President, administration and Congressional supporters, was some form of the line Obama gave in an August 22, 2009, internet address, claiming, "If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."[5]

When the law was enacted on October 1, 2013, many individually insured people began receiving letters from their insurance carriers notifying them that their current plans would be canceled at the end of the policy term. The plans were canceled because they did not meet new minimum coverage requirements set by the law.[6] On October 29, 2013, NBC News reported that 50-75% of the 14 million Americans with individual healthcare plans would receive a cancellation notice in the next year.

On November 14, 2013, under pressure from Democratic members of Congress, President Obama announced the administration's intention to allow people whose insurance plans had been canceled to re-enroll in their plans. On December 19, 2013, the administration announced that those whose plans were canceled under the law met the Health and Human Services Department's "hardship exemption." The stated exemption covered those who "experienced financial or domestic circumstances, including an unexpected natural or human-caused event, such that he or she had a significant, unexpected increase in essential expenses that prevented him or her from obtaining coverage under a qualified health plan."[7] On March 5, 2014, the delayed mandate was pushed back another year, until 2015, for those who had their plans canceled.

2013 Farm bills

House

On June 20, 2013, the House voted down its own version of the massive farm bill that would have set the course of U.S. food policy for the next half-decade. The House version was 629 pages long, costing approximately $939.5 billion over 10 years.[8]

Members voted down the bill in a 195-234 vote that only won 24 Democratic votes.[9][10] Most Democrats voted against the bill because it cut food stamp programs by more than $20 billion, while many Republicans also voted no, saying it was too expensive a bill to pass when the country has $17 trillion in debt.[10]

Senate

On June 10, 2013, the Senate voted 66 to 27 to approve a farm bill that was expected to help set the course of U.S. food policy. The old farm bill expired in 2012, and the new Senate farm bill was 1,150 pages long, costing approximately $955 billion over 10 years.[11]

Comparing the bills

Compared with the Senate bill, the House bill had less money designated for food stamps and nutrition. There was also somewhat less money for conservation, slightly deeper cuts to commodity payments and a bit more money for crop insurance, due to a number of different rules used to calculate payments.[12]

House vote on abortion ban

On June 18, 2013, the House voted 228-196, mostly along party lines, to approve a ban on late-term abortions, or abortions occurring after 20 weeks of pregnancy[13][14] A number of members crossed over party lines in their votes. The vote was largely symbolic as the bill is not expected to be taken up in the Senate and the White House has threatened to veto the legislation.[15] Some of the notable votes included:

Republican PartyRepublicans who voted against:

Note: Reps. Woodall and Broun were opposed because they felt the bill did not go far enough and left exceptions to the ban.[16]

Democratic PartyDemocrats who voted in favor:

2013 Budget Proposals

Paul Ryan Budget Plan

In March 2013 the Republican-controlled House passed the budget proposal set out by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (R) for the third straight year.[17] However, not all Republican representatives voted in favor of the proposal.[17] Ten Republican Representatives voted against Ryan's budget proposal.[17] The 10 Republican Representatives included Justin Amash, Paul Broun, Rick Crawford, Randy Forbes, Chris Gibson, Phil Gingrey, Joe Heck, Walter Jones, Tom Massie and David McKinley.

The proposal was killed after being voted down in the U.S. Senate with a 40-59 vote.[18]

The proposal would have cut about $5 trillion over the next decade and aimed to balance the budget by the end of the 10-year period. The 2013 bill had opposition from 10 Republicans — the same number that voted against it in 2012. In 2011 only four Republicans cast a vote in opposition. Democrats unanimously voted against the bill every year.

Senate Budget Proposal

On March 23, 2013, after an all-night debate that ended just before 5 a.m., by a 50 to 49 vote the Democrat-controlled Senate approved its first budget in four years.[19] No Republicans voted for the Senate plan, and four Democrats, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich and Max Baucus, opposed it. All four were from red states and were up for re-election in 2014.[19]

The approved plan was a $3.7 trillion budget for 2014 and provided a fast track for passage of tax increases, trim spending modestly and leave the government still deeply in the red for the next decade.[19]

The approval of a budget in the Senate began the process of setting up contentious negotiations with the Republican-controlled House in April 2013 to reconcile two vastly different plans for dealing with the nation’s economic and budgetary problems.

The House plan would have brought the government’s taxes and spending into balance by 2023 with cuts to domestic spending even below the levels of automatic across-the-board cuts for federal programs at the time, and it ordered up dramatic and controversial changes to Medicare and the tax code.[19]

The Senate plan differed greatly, and included $100 billion in upfront infrastructure spending to bolster the economy and calls for special fast-track rules to overhaul the tax code and raise $975 billion over 10 years in legislation that could not be filibustered. Even with that tax increase and prescribed spending cuts, the plan approved by the Senate would leave the government with a $566 billion annual deficit in 10 years, and $5.2 trillion in additional debt over that window.

A budget was not passed.[19]

March 2013 filibuster

See also: Rand Paul filibuster of John Brennan's CIA Nomination in March 2013

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak.”[20] With these words Sen. Rand Paul initiated a filibuster to delay the senate vote on the confirmation of the President's nominee to the head of the CIA and to draw attention to the questions surrounding the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or "drones" by the executive branch. Paul began speaking shortly before noon on Wednesday and continued to speak for 12 hours and 52 minutes, which marks his speech as the 9th longest filibuster in the history of the Senate.[21] When asked why this sort of event does not occur more frequently, Paul explained that since who speaks on the Senate floor is decided by the leadership of the Senate, it's often difficult to begin a traditional filibuster. "One of the reasons filibusters don't occur is because they carefully guard the floor from letting it happen. And it was left unguarded," he said. "We had no plan and I had the wrong shoes on, my feet were hurting the whole day."[22]

The main topic of Paul's speech was the use of drones as a means of attacking American citizens on U.S. soil, asking "Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?"[23]. Paul protested the lack of transparency in the drone program, asking "What will be the standard for how we kill Americans in America?... Could political dissent be part of the standard for drone strikes?"[24] Paul questioned the President's refusal to state publicly that such strikes would not be used against citizens on U.S. soil saying, "[Obama] says trust him because he hasn’t done it yet. He says he doesn’t intend to do so, but he might. Mr. President, that’s not good enough . . . so I’ve come here to speak for as long as I can to draw attention to something that I find to really be very disturbing.”[25] Paul concluded his remarks asking for his counterparts on the other side of the aisle to join him in his efforts to obtain clarification from the president.[26]

A total of 14 senators joined Paul in the filibuster -- 13 Republicans and one Democrat.[27][28][29] According to the website Breitbart, 30 Republican senators did not support the filibuster.[30][31] The day after the filibuster, Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Paul, responding to the filibuster. Holder wrote, "Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil? The answer to that is no."[32]

"Nuclear option" for nominees

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option" in the Senate. The "nuclear option" is using an interpretation of Senate procedure to be able to change chamber rules with a simple majority vote. In this case, the option was used to change the vote requirement for executive nominee confirmations to be considered on the floor.[33] Prior to the rule change, Senators could filibuster until a cloture motion requiring 60 votes was passed in the chamber. The "nuclear option" changed the requirement to a simple majority. The threat of the "nuclear option" occurred in many Congresses, but none had put the option into use.[34]

The "nuclear option" was invoked in response to Senate Republicans blocking the nomination of three D.C. Circuit Court judges. The rule change passed by a vote of 52-48, with Carl Levin, Joe Manchin and Mark Pryor being the only Democrats to vote in opposition. According to the Congressional Research Service, of the 67 times between 1967 and 2012 the filibuster was used on a judicial nominee, 31 were during during the Obama administration.[34]

The change in rules specifically did not apply to legislation or Supreme Court nominees.[33]

Leadership

Senate

Position Representative Party
President of the Senate Joe Biden Electiondot.png Democratic
Senate Majority Leadership
President pro tempore Patrick Leahy Electiondot.png Democratic
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Electiondot.png Democratic
Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin Electiondot.png Democratic
Senate Minority Leadership
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Ends.png Republican
Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn Ends.png Republican

House of Representatives

Position Representative Party
Speaker of the House John Boehner Ends.png Republican
House Majority Leadership
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Ends.png Republican
House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy Ends.png Republican
House Minority Leadership
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Electiondot.png Democratic
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer Electiondot.png Democratic

Speaker of the House election

During the 113th Congress swearing in ceremony and election for Speaker of the House, Ohio representative and Speaker of the 112th Congress John Boehner (R) saw nine Republican members of Congress either vote for someone else or abstain and vote present. This is a change from the Speaker election in 2010, where Boehner received votes from the entire 241 member Republican caucus. Boehner won re-election to the speakership with 220 votes. He needed a majority of members voting, which required 214 of the 426 who voted. Former Speaker and California representative Nancy Pelosi (D) in turn received 192 votes.[35]

The nine Republican members who voted for someone other than Boehner include: Justin Amash, Steve Pearce, Jim Bridenstine, Ted Yoho, Paul Broun, Louie Gohmert, Walter Jones, Thomas Massie and Tim Huelskamp. Not all members who voted for someone other than Boehner or Pelosi voted for a current member of the U.S. House. Outgoing member Allen West, former Comptroller General David Walker and former Secretary of State Colin Powell all received votes.[35] This highlights the fact that the speaker does not have to be a member of the U.S. House, although all previous speakers have been.[36]

Following the vote, the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives remained the same as it was in the 112th United States Congress.

Members

See also: List of current members of the U.S. Congress

Partisan balance

Senate Partisan Balance
Party 113th Congress
Democratic 53
Republican 45
Independent 2
Total 100
House Partisan Balance
Party 113th Congress
Democratic 201
Republican 234
Vacancies 0
Total 435

Reputation

The 113th Congress suffered from very poor approval ratings throughout most of its session. In November of 2013, Gallup reported a nine percent approval rating for Congress. This was effectively the lowest approval rating for Congress ever recorded.[37] Near the end of the 113th congressional session, Real Clear Politics reported that the 113th Congress will finish with an approval rating just above 14 percent.[38] The abysmal approval ratings led many political analysts to argue that the 113th Congress was possibly the worst in recent history. A poll by CNN was released in December of 2013 and stated that two-thirds of Americans believed the 113th Congress was the worst of their lifetime.[39]

Congressional Approval Rating (December 2014)
Poll Approve DisapproveSample Size
The Economist/YouGov
December 13-15, 2014
11%72%698
Wall Street Journal
December 10-14, 2014
16%78%1,000
Gallup
December 8-11, 2014
16%80%805
Fox News
December 7-9, 2014
14%80%1,043
Associated Press/GfK
December 4-8, 2014
15%84%1,010
AVERAGES 14.4% 78.8% 911.2
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org

Congressional committees

U.S. House

Congressional committees (House)

Page:
United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Small Business    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Judiciary    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Budget    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Ethics    
United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules    
United States House of Representatives Committee on House Administration    
United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources    

U.S. Senate

Congressional committees (Senate)

Page:
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation    
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations    
United States Senate Committee on Armed Services    
United States Senate Committee on Aging (Special)    
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary    
United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs    
United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry    
United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions    
United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations    
United States Senate Committee on Budget    
United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works    
United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs    
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources    
United States Senate Committee on Intelligence (Select)    
United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship    
United States Senate Committee on Finance    
United States Senate Committee on Ethics (Select)    
United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration    
United States Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs    
United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs    

Joint committees

Congressional committees (Joint)

Page:
United States Congress Joint Economic Committee    
United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation    
United States Congress Joint Committee on the Library    
United States Congress Joint Committee on Printing    


Analysis

Salary

As of 2014, members of Congress are paid $174,000 per year. Senate majority and minority leaders, as well as the president pro tempore, receive $193,400. The Speaker of the House receives $223,500.[40]

Some historical facts about the salary of United States Congress members:

  • In 1789, members of the Congress received $6 per diem[40]
  • In 1874, members of the Congress earned $5,000 per year[40]
  • In 1990, members of the Congress earned $98,400 per year[40]
  • From 2000-2006, the salary of a member of the United States Congress increased every year, going from $141,300-$165,200 in that time span.[40]

Voting with the party

Senators

According to OpenCongress, a website that tracks how often members of Congress vote with the majority of their party caucus. In May 2014, there were 51 Democrats and 45 Republicans tracked.

Democrats:[41]

  • The average (mean) Democrat voted with the party approximately 95.0% of the team.
  • The average (median) Democrat voted with the party approximately 95.55% of the time.
  • The top Democrat voted with the party approximately 98.8% of the time.
  • The bottom Democrat voted with the party approximately 72.8% of the time.

Republicans:[42]

  • The average (both mean & median) Republican voted with the party approximately 88.0% of the team.
  • The top Republican voted with the party approximately 94.9% of the time.
  • The bottom Republican voted with the party approximately 62.7% of the time.

Representatives

According to OpenCongress, a website that tracks how often members of Congress vote with the majority of their party caucus. In May 2014, there were 198 Democrats and 230 Republicans tracked.

Democrats:[43]

  • The average (mean) Democrat voted with the party approximately 93.2% of the team.
  • The average (median) Democrat voted with the party approximately 93.3% of the time.
  • The top Democrat voted with the party approximately 97.0% of the time.
  • The bottom Democrat voted with the party approximately 60.6% of the time.

Republicans:[44]

  • The average (mean) Republican voted with the party approximately 94.2% of the team.
  • The average (median) Republican voted with the party approximately 94.3% of the time.
  • The top Republican voted with the party approximately 98.2% of the time.
  • The bottom Republican voted with the party approximately 75.1% of the time.

Professions

Senate

The following data lists the professions of the members of the U.S. Senate and the change in their numbers from the 112th congress.[45]

  • 45 lawyers (-1)
  • 22 businesspeople (0)
  • 9 career politicians and government employees (-1)
  • 7 educators (0)
  • 4 nonprofit and community workers (+1)
  • 3 medical professionals (0)
  • 3 farmers and ranchers (+1)
  • 3 career military and law enforcement (+1)
  • 2 entertainment and media (-1)
  • 2 other (+1): 1 social worker, 1 engineer

House

The following data lists the professions of the members of the U.S. House and the change in their numbers from the 112th congress.[45]

  • 128 lawyers (+3)
  • 108 businesspeople (-7)
  • 55 career politicians and government employees (+2)
  • 44 educators (+2)
  • 29 medical professionals (+1)
  • 19 career military and law enforcement (+2)
  • 12 farmers and ranchers (-1)
  • 10 nonprofit and community workers (0)
  • 8 entertainment and media (+4)
  • 7 accountants (0)
  • 13 other (-4): 2 social workers, 1 microbiologist, 1 legal secretary, 2 clergy, 2 engineers, 1 youth camp director, 1 mill supervisor, 1 physicist, 1 carpenter, 1 union rep

113th Congress: Demographics

The 113th Congress was the most diverse Congress in the nation's history, owing to a record number of newly elected women and minorities.[1]

New members, including the first Buddhist to hold a seat in the Senate, were elected on November 6, 2012.[1] Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), who was appointed to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), is the first African American Republican in the Senate since 1979.

Currently, there are three Latino, one African American and 20 female members of the U.S. Senate.[1][46]

Election rivals serving concurrently

There are several members of the U.S. House that were one-time rivals who faced off in previous elections. This is not a normal occurrence but does happen after redistricting or when a former candidate moves. The following is a list of such cases in the 113th Congress.

Lobbying positions after leaving office

In March 2013, USA Today compiled a list of sixteen former lawmakers who took on a lobbying related positions after leaving office.[47] Included on the list were Steven C. LaTourette, Jo Ann Emerson, Denny Rehberg, Howard Berman, Scott Brown, Kathy Hochul, Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman.[47] The 16 former lawmakers were out of the 98 total lawmakers who have retired or were ousted by voters since January 2011 hold lobbying-related jobs.[47] USA Today looked at lawmakers who retired, resigned or lost their seats in the last Congress — along with the handful who left their posts during the first months of the new 113th Congress.[47]

Despite rules in place to prevent the constant rotation of lawmakers into lobbying positions, 16 former lawmakers have recently entered into positions with either lobbying firms or trade associations.[47] Former House members are barred from lobbying their former colleagues for a year, and former senators are barred for two years.[47]

There are no restrictions, however, on providing behind-the-scenes advice to corporations and others seeking to shape federal legislation.[47] Ex-lawmakers can immediately lobby the executive branch and officials in state and local governments.[47] Many former lawmakers are taking advantage of this slight distinction, and are taking positions after their political careers end as consultants and strategists.[47]

See also

External links

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 The Washington Post, "The 113th Congress is the most diverse in history," January 3, 2013
  2. Slate.com, "For the First Time Ever, We'll Have Two Black Senators Serving at the Same Time," January 30, 2013
  3. The Washington Post, "Congress's committee chairmen push to reassert their power," February 13, 2013
  4. Govtrack, "H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," accessed November 5, 2013
  5. Boston Globe, "Obama slams 'outrageous myths' on health care; Republicans say president 'plays fast and loose' with facts," August 22, 2009
  6. New York Times, "Cancellation of Healthcare Plans Replaces Website Problems as Prime Target," October 29, 2013
  7. Washington Post, "The individual mandate no longer applies to people whose plans were canceled," December 19, 2013
  8. Washington Post, "The House is voting on a $940 billion farm bill. Here’s what’s in it," accessed June 20, 2013
  9. Politico, "House Farm bill roll call vote: Who voted against the bill" accessed June 20, 2013
  10. 10.0 10.1 The Hill, "House rejects farm bill" accessed June 20, 2013
  11. Washington Post, "The Senate is voting on a $955 billion farm bill. Here’s what’s in it." accessed June 20, 2013
  12. Congressional Research Service, "The 2013 Farm Bill: A Comparison of the Senate-Passed Bill (S. 954) and House-Reported Bill (H.R. 1947) with Current Law" accessed June 20, 2013
  13. CNN "House passes late term abortion ban" accessed June 20, 2013
  14. U.S. House, "June 18 Roll Call Vote" accessed June 20, 2013
  15. Politico, "House OKs 20-week abortion ban bill" accessed June 20, 2013
  16. Examiner, "Two Georgia Republicans voted against abortion ban (Video)" accessed June 20, 2013
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Washington Post, "10 House Republicans Vote Against Ryan Budget," accessed March 22, 2013
  18. CBS News, "Senate Rejects Paul Ryan Budget," accessed March 22, 2013
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 New York Times, "Senate Passes $3.7 Trillion Budget, Setting Up Contentious Negotiations," accessed March 25, 2013
  20. Washingtontimes.com"After almost 13 hours, Rand Paul ends Brennan filibuster" March 7, 2013
  21. NYTimes.com, "Republicans, Led by Rand Paul, Finally End Filibuster," March 7, 2013
  22. CNN Poliitical ticker, "Rand Paul on filibuster: 'We had no plan.'" March 7, 2013
  23. FoxNews.com, "Sen. Paul declares 'victory' after Holder offers assurance on drones," March 7, 2013
  24. NYTimes.com, "Republicans, Led by Rand Paul, Finally End Filibuster," March 7,2013
  25. Washingtonexaminer.com, "Rand Paul filibustering over drones: I will not let Obama ‘shred the Constitution,’" March 7, 2013
  26. USA Today, "Rand Paul filibuster ranks among Senate's longest," March 7, 2013
  27. CNN, "Rand Paul says he's heard from White House after filibuster," March 7, 2013
  28. USA Today, "Rand Paul filibuster ranks among Senate's longest," March 7, 2013
  29. ABC News, "Rand Paul Wins Applause From GOP and Liberals," March 7, 2013
  30. Breitbart, "AWOL: Meet The GOP Senators Who Refused to Stand With Rand," March 7, 2013
  31. Politico, "Rand Paul filibuster blasted by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham," March 7, 2013
  32. Washington Post, "Eric Holder responds to Rand Paul with ‘no,’" March 7, 2013
  33. 33.0 33.1 Politico, "Senate goes for 'nuclear option'," November 21, 2013
  34. 34.0 34.1 Washington Post, "Reid, Democrats trigger 'nuclear' option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees," November 21, 2013
  35. 35.0 35.1 The Hill, "Boehner re-elected as Speaker; nine Republicans defect in vote," January 3, 2013
  36. Office of the Clerk, "House Leadership & Officers," accessed January 3, 2013
  37. Gallup, "Congressional approval sinks to record low," November 11, 2014
  38. Real Clear Politics, "Congressional Approval," accessed December 24, 2014
  39. CNN "Poll: This is a do-nothing Congress," December 26, 2013
  40. 40.0 40.1 40.2 40.3 40.4 U.S. Senate, "Salaries," accessed May 29, 2012
  41. OpenCongress, "Voting With Party," accessed May 16, 2014
  42. OpenCongress, "Voting With Party," accessed May 16, 2014
  43. OpenCongress, "Voting With Party," accessed May 16, 2014
  44. OpenCongress, "Voting With Party," accessed May 16, 2014
  45. 45.0 45.1 Bloomberg Businessweek, "The 113th Congress, by the Numbers," January 10, 2013
  46. MSNBC.com, "113th Congress by the numbers," January 3, 2013
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.6 47.7 47.8 USA Today, "Former lawmakers lobbying jobs" accessed March 27, 2013