美国国会 / United States Congress -（全文）中英文维基百科词条融合

中文词条原文链接（无法从中国内地访问）：请点击这里访问
英文词条原文链接（无法从中国内地访问）：请点击这里访问
本文基于英文词条的线索，并补充部分来自中文词条的内容（在二者冲突时，以更晚更新者为准）。 辽观搬运时进行了必要的合规化处理，以使其能够在中国内地上传。部分文字采用汉语拼音方式代替，音节后的数字表示汉语拼音规则中的声调。

关于辽观的维基百科搬运计划，及其他已搬运的词条，请点击这里了解更多。维基百科（Wikipedia）是美国维基媒体基金会的互联网百科项目，其内容可能受到立场、信息来源等因素影响，请客观看待。正文内容不代表译者观点。

辽观提供的翻译仅供参考。文中可能包含无法从中国内地访问的链接。

辽观所搬运的词条文本与维基百科一道同样遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议（辽观搬运的中英文对照版本），在符合协议要求的情况下您可以免费使用其内容（包括商用）。图片和视频可能遵循不同的共享协议。请点击这里访问

0. 概述

辽观注：此标题是我们在搬运、整合过程中添加的。

0.1 文字说明（中英文词条的开篇部分）

辽观注：此标题是我们在搬运、整合过程中添加的。

合众国国会^[1]（英语：United States Congress），通称为美国国会，是美国最高立法机关，由参议院与众议院构成，位于华盛顿特区的国会大厦。根据《美国宪法》，美国是三权分立的国家，其中立法权力归于国会、行政权力归于总统、司法权力归于最高法院。国会是美国的权力中枢，由经直接选举产生参议院议员与众议院议员组成的两院制度，每个议员代表其选区内的选民；但是作为一个整体，国会议员代表整个国家的选民，通过立法来规范政府与人民的行为等。

The United States Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is a bicameral legislature, including a lower body, the U.S. House of Representatives, and an upper body, the U.S. Senate. They both meet in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.
【参考译文】美国国会是美利坚合众国联邦政府的立法分支。它是一个两院制立法机构，包括下议院——美国众议院（U.S. House of Representatives）和上议院——美国参议院（U.S. Senate）。两院均在华盛顿特区的美国国会大厦（United States Capitol）举行会议。

Members of Congress are chosen through direct election,^{[Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913, senators were chosen by state legislatures.]} though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a governor‘s appointment. Congress has a total of 535 voting members, a figure which includes 100 senators and 435 representatives; the House of Representatives has 6 additional non-voting members. The vice president of the United States, as president of the Senate, has a vote in the Senate only when there is a tie.^[2]
【参考译文】国会议员通过直接选举产生，^{[在1913年《美国宪法第十七条修正案》批准之前，参议员由各州议会选出。]} 但参议院出现空缺时，可由州长任命填补。国会共有535名有投票权的议员，其中包括100名参议员和435名众议员；此外，众议院还有6名无投票权的代表。美国副总统作为参议院议长，仅在参议院表决出现平票时才拥有决定性一票。[2]

Congress^{[Congress does not take a grammatical article, except when referring to an individual Congress.[3]]} convenes for a two-year term (a Congress), commencing every other January. Each Congress is usually split into two sessions, one for each year. Elections are held every even-numbered year on Election Day. The members of the House of Representatives are elected for the two-year term of a Congress. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 established that there be 435 representatives, and the Uniform Congressional District Act requires that they be elected from single-member constituencies or districts. It is also required that the congressional districts be apportioned among states by population every ten years using the U.S. census results, provided that each state has at least one congressional representative. Each senator is elected at-large in their state for a six-year term, with terms staggered, so every two years approximately one-third of the Senate is up for election. Each state, regardless of population or size, has two senators, so currently, there are 100 senators for the 50 states.
【参考译文】国会^{[“Congress”（国会）一词通常不加冠词，除非指某一届具体的国会。[3]]}每届任期为两年（称为“一届国会”），每隔一年的1月开始新一届任期。每届国会通常分为两次会议，每年一次。选举在每个偶数年份的选举日（Election Day）举行。众议院议员的任期与国会届期一致，为两年。1929年《重新分配法案》（Reapportionment Act）规定众议院席位固定为435席，《统一国会选区法》（Uniform Congressional District Act）则要求众议员必须从单一议员选区（single-member districts）中选出。此外，根据美国宪法要求，国会选区须每十年依据人口普查结果按各州人口比例重新分配，但每个州至少须拥有一名众议员。每位参议员由其所在州全体选民选举产生，任期六年，采用交错任期制，因此每两年约有三分之一的参议员席位进行改选。无论人口或面积大小，每个州均有两名参议员，因此目前50个州共产生100名参议员。

Article One of the U.S. Constitution requires that members of Congress be at least 25 years old for the House and at least 30 years old for the U.S. Senate, be a U.S. citizen for seven years for the House and nine years for the Senate, and be an inhabitant of the state which they represent. Members in both chambers may stand for re-election an unlimited number of times.
【参考译文】根据美国宪法第一条，众议员候选人须年满25岁，参议员候选人须年满30岁；众议员须成为美国公民至少七年，参议员则须至少九年；且候选人必须是其所代表州的居民。两院议员均可无限次连任。

Congress was created by the U.S. Constitution and first met in 1789, replacing the Congress of the Confederation in its legislative function. Although not legally mandated, in practice members of Congress since the late 19th century are typically affiliated with one of the two major parties, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and only rarely with a third party or independents affiliated with no party. Members can also switch parties at any time, though this is uncommon.
【参考译文】美国国会由《美国宪法》创立，于1789年首次召开会议，取代了此前邦联条例下的邦联国会（Congress of the Confederation）行使立法职能。尽管法律并未强制规定，但从19世纪末以来，国会议员实际上通常隶属于两大主要政党之一——民主党或共和党，极少属于第三党或无党派独立人士。议员也可在任何时候转换党籍，但这种情况较为罕见。

0.2 英文词条“Overview”章节

辽观注：此标题是我们在搬运、整合过程中添加的。

Article One of the United States Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process – legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. The Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills.
【参考译文】《美国宪法》第一条规定：“本宪法所授予的全部立法权属于由参议院和众议院组成的美利坚合众国国会。” 众议院与众议院在立法过程中地位平等——任何法案未经两院共同同意均无法成为法律。宪法赋予两院各自独有的权力：参议院负责批准条约和总统提名的人事任命，而众议院则拥有提出征税法案的专属权。

The House initiates and decides impeachment while the Senate votes on conviction and removal of office for impeachment cases.^[4] A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required before an impeached person can be removed from office.^[4]
【参考译文】众议院负责发起并决定是否弹劾联邦官员，而参议院则对弹劾案进行审判，并决定是否将其罢免。[4] 要将被弹劾者罢免职务，须获得参议院三分之二多数票的支持。[4]

The term Congress can also refer to a particular meeting of the legislature. A Congress covers two years; the current one, the 119th Congress, began on January 3, 2025, and will end on January 3, 2027. Since the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Congress has started and ended at noon on the third day of January of every odd-numbered year. Members of the Senate are referred to as senators, while members of the House of Representatives are commonly referred to as representatives, congressmen, or congresswomen.
【参考译文】“国会”（Congress）一词也可指立法机构的一次特定会期。每届国会任期为两年；当前第119届国会始于2025年1月3日，将于2027年1月3日结束。自《美国宪法第二十条修正案》通过以来，每届国会均于奇数年1月3日中午正式开始和结束。参议院成员称为“参议员”（senators），众议院成员通常被称为“众议员”（representatives）、“国会议员”（congressmen）或“女国会议员”（congresswomen）。

Scholar and representative Lee H. Hamilton asserted that the “historic mission of Congress has been to maintain freedom” and insisted it was a “driving force in American government”^[5] and a “remarkably resilient institution”.^[6] Congress is the “heart and soul of our democracy”, according to this view, even though legislators rarely achieve the prestige or name recognition of presidents or Supreme Court justices; one wrote that “legislators remain ghosts in America’s historical imagination.” One analyst argues that it is not a solely reactive institution but has played an active role in shaping government policy and is extraordinarily sensitive to public pressure.^[7] Several academics described Congress:
【参考译文】学者兼前众议员李·H·汉密尔顿（Lee H. Hamilton）指出，国会的“历史使命是维护自由”，并强调它是“美国政府的驱动力”[5] 和“一个非凡而富有韧性的制度”。[6] 按照这种观点，国会是“我们民主的心脏与灵魂”，尽管国会议员很少能获得总统或最高法院大法官那样的声望或公众认知度；有评论称：“在美国的历史想象中，立法者仍是幽灵般的存在。” 一位分析人士认为，国会并非仅是一个被动反应的机构，而是在塑造政府政策方面发挥了积极作用，并且对公众压力极为敏感。[7] 多位学者如此描述国会：

Congress reflects us in all our strengths and all our weaknesses. It reflects our regional idiosyncrasies, our ethnic, religious, and racial diversity, our multitude of professions, and our shadings of opinion on everything from the value of war to the war over values. Congress is the government’s most representative body … Congress is essentially charged with reconciling our many points of view on the great public policy issues of the day.^[5]

【参考译文】“国会在我们的所有优点与缺点中映照出我们自身。它体现了我们各地区的独特性、族裔、宗教和种族的多样性、众多职业背景，以及我们在从战争价值到价值观之争等一切议题上的多元观点。国会是政府最具代表性的机构……其核心职责正是调和我们在当日重大公共政策问题上的各种立场。”[5]

Congress is constantly changing and is constantly in flux.^[8] In recent times, the American South and West have gained House seats according to demographic changes recorded by the census and includes more women and minorities.^[8] While power balances among the different parts of government continue to change, the internal structure of Congress is important to understand along with its interactions with so-called intermediary institutions such as political parties, civic associations, interest groups, and the mass media.^[7]
【参考译文】国会始终处于不断变化与流动之中。[8] 近年来，根据人口普查记录的人口结构变化，美国南部和西部在众议院获得更多席位，同时国会中的女性和少数族裔代表也日益增多。[8] 尽管政府各部门之间的权力平衡持续演变，但理解国会的内部结构及其与所谓“中介组织”（如政党、公民团体、利益集团和大众媒体）的互动仍至关重要。[7]

The Congress of the United States serves two distinct purposes that overlap: local representation to the federal government of a congressional district by representatives and a state’s at-large representation to the federal government by senators.
【参考译文】美国国会承担着两项相互重叠但性质不同的职能：众议员代表其所在国会选区向联邦政府表达地方利益，而参议员则代表整个州向联邦政府提供全州范围的代表。

Most incumbents seek re-election, and their historical likelihood of winning subsequent elections exceeds 90 percent.^[9]
【参考译文】大多数现任议员都会寻求连任，而他们赢得后续选举的历史概率超过90%。[9]

The historical records of the House of Representatives and the Senate are maintained by the Center for Legislative Archives, which is a part of the National Archives and Records Administration.^[10]
【参考译文】众议院和参议院的历史档案由隶属于美国国家档案与文件管理局（NARA）的立法档案中心（Center for Legislative Archives）保管。[10]

Congress is directly responsible for the governing of the District of Columbia, the current seat of the federal government.
【参考译文】国会直接负责治理哥伦比亚特区（District of Columbia）——即当前联邦政府所在地。

0.3 概况表格

辽观注：此标题是我们在搬运、整合过程中添加的。

合众国国会 United States Congress
第119届美国国会
种类
种类	两院制
架构	美国参议院 美国众议院
历史
成立	1789年3月4日​（236年前）
前身	邦联议会
当前任期	2025年1月3日-2027年1月3日
领导
参议院议长 （副总统兼任）	JD·万斯（共和党） 自2025年1月20日
参议院临时议长	查克·格拉斯利（共和党） 自2025年1月3日
参议院多数党领袖	约翰·图恩（共和党） 自2025年1月3日
众议院议长	迈克·约翰逊（共和党） 自2023年10月3日
众议院多数党领袖	史蒂夫·斯卡利斯（共和党） 自2023年1月3日
结构
议员	535名投票人 100名参议院议员 435名众议院议员 6名委任代表
参议院政党	多数党（53）   共和党（53） 少数党（47）   民主党（45）   无党籍（2）[安格斯·金和伯尼·桑德斯加入参议院民主党党团。] 空缺（0）   空缺（0）
众议院政党	多数党（219）   共和党（219） 少数党（214）   民主党（214） 空缺（2）   空缺（2）[德克萨斯州第十八国会选区、田纳西州第七国会选区]
选举
参议院上届选举	2024年11月8日
众议院上届选举	2024年11月8日
会议地点
美国华盛顿特区国会山庄
网址
国会在线数据库 参议院 众议院

1. 历史 | History

Main article: History of the United States Congress【主条目：美国国会的历史】

主条目：邦联议会 (美国)和美国宪法

合众国国会创立于1789年3月4日，它的前身是邦联议会（1781年－1789年）。美国宪法第一条指明国会的结构、权力和运作方式。国会的两院制是康涅狄格妥协的结果，试图在大州所拥护的弗吉尼亚方案和小州所拥护的新泽西方案之间，达到一个平衡。两院制也代表美国制宪会议代表对直接民主的不信任。在美国宪法第一条的第二款和第三款中，他们指定众议院的众议员由选民直接选举，但是参议院的参议员则由各州立法机构选举（后一条款在1913年通过了美国宪法第十七条修正案之后，改为由各州选民直接选举）。

宪法还规定众议员的任期为两年，每两年全部改选一次，而参议员任期是六年^{[第一届选举时规定有1/3是任期两年；1/3任期四年，1/3任期六年，以后的参议员选举都为任期六年。]}，每两年改选大约三分之一的议员。在总统选举两年后所进行的国会选举，称为中期选举。

1.1 18世纪 | 18th century

The First Continental Congress was a gathering of representatives from twelve of the Thirteen Colonies.^[11] On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, referring to the new nation as the “United States of America”. The Articles of Confederation in 1781 created the Congress of the Confederation, a unicameral body with equal representation among the states in which each state had a veto over most decisions. Congress had executive but not legislative authority, and the federal judiciary was confined to admiralty^[12] and lacked authority to collect taxes, regulate commerce, or enforce laws.^[13][14]
【参考译文】第一届大陆会议是由十三个殖民地中十二个殖民地的代表组成的集会。[11] 1776年7月4日，第二届大陆会议通过了《独立宣言》，首次将这个新生国家称为“美利坚合众国”。1781年通过的《邦联条例》设立了邦联国会（Congress of the Confederation），这是一个一院制机构，各州拥有平等代表权，且每个州对大多数决策都拥有否决权。该国会拥有行政权，但没有立法权；联邦司法体系仅限于海事法院，[12] 且无权征税、管理商业或执行法律。[13][14]

Government powerlessness led to the Convention of 1787 which proposed a revised constitution with a two-chamber or bicameral Congress.^[15] Smaller states argued for equal representation for each state.^[16] The two-chamber structure had functioned well in state governments.^[17] A compromise plan, the Connecticut Compromise, was adopted with representatives chosen by population (benefiting larger states) and exactly two senators chosen by state governments (benefiting smaller states).^[8][18] The ratified constitution created a federal structure with two overlapping power centers so that each citizen as an individual is subject to the powers of state government and national government.^[19][20][21] To protect against abuse of power, each branch of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – had a separate sphere of authority and could check other branches according to the principle of the separation of powers.^[4] Furthermore, there were checks and balances within the legislature since there were two separate chambers.^[22] The new government became active in 1789.^[4][23]
【参考译文】由于邦联政府软弱无力，1787年召开了制宪会议，提出了一部修订后的宪法，其中设立了一个两院制（即两院结构）的国会。[15] 小州主张各州在国会中应拥有平等的代表权。[16] 这种两院结构在各州政府中已有良好运作经验。[17] 最终采纳了“康涅狄格妥协案”（Connecticut Compromise）：众议院议员按各州人口比例选出（有利于大州），而参议院则由各州政府各选派两名参议员（有利于小州）。[8][18] 经批准的宪法建立了一个联邦体制，设有两个相互重叠的权力中心，使每位公民同时受州政府和联邦政府的管辖。[19][20][21] 为防止权力滥用，政府的行政、立法和司法三个分支各自拥有独立的职权范围，并依据“分权制衡”原则相互制约。[4] 此外，立法机构内部也设有制衡机制，因为其由两个独立的议院组成。[22] 新政府于1789年开始运作。[4][23]

Political scientist Julian E. Zelizer suggested there were four main congressional eras, with considerable overlap, and included the formative era (1780s–1820s), the partisan era (1830s–1900s), the committee era (1910s–1960s), and the contemporary era (1970–present).^[24]
【参考译文】政治学家朱利安·E·泽利泽（Julian E. Zelizer）提出，美国国会历史可分为四个主要时期，彼此之间有相当程度的重叠：形成期（1780年代–1820年代）、党派期（1830年代–1900年代）、委员会主导期（1910年代–1960年代）以及当代期（1970年至今）。[24]

Federalists and anti-federalists jostled for power in the early years as political parties became pronounced. With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the anti-federalist movement was exhausted. Some activists joined the Anti-Administration Party that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were forming about 1790–1791 to oppose policies of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton; it soon became the Democratic-Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republican Party^[25] and thus began the era of the First Party System.
【参考译文】在美国建国初期，联邦党人与反联邦党人为争夺权力激烈角力，随着政党的日益鲜明而展开竞争。随着宪法和《权利法案》的通过，反联邦主义运动逐渐式微。一些活动人士加入了詹姆斯·麦迪逊和托马斯·杰斐逊大约在1790–1791年间组建的“反行政派”（Anti-Administration Party），以反对财政部长亚历山大·汉密尔顿的政策；该派别很快演变为民主共和党（Democratic-Republican Party），亦称杰斐逊共和党，[25] 由此开启了美国“第一政党体系”时代。

1.2 19世纪 | 19th century

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson‘s election to the presidency marked a peaceful transition of power between the parties. John Marshall, 4th chief justice of the Supreme Court, empowered the courts by establishing the principle of judicial review in law in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, effectively giving the Supreme Court a power to nullify congressional legislation.^[26][27]
【参考译文】1800年，托马斯·杰斐逊当选总统，标志着美国政党之间首次实现和平的权力交接。1803年，在具有里程碑意义的“马伯里诉麦迪逊案”（Marbury v. Madison）中，美国最高法院第四任首席大法官约翰·马歇尔确立了司法审查原则，实际上赋予了最高法院否决国会立法的权力，从而大大增强了法院的权威。[26][27]

The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1865, resolved the slavery issue and unified the nation under federal authority but weakened the power of states’ rights. The Gilded Age (1877–1901) was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. During this time, lobbying activity became more intense, particularly during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in which influential lobbies advocated for railroad subsidies and tariffs on wool.^[28] Immigration and high birth rates swelled the ranks of citizens and the nation grew at a rapid pace.
【参考译文】1861年至1865年的美国内战解决了奴隶制问题，将国家统一于联邦权威之下，但也削弱了各州的州权。镀金时代（1877–1901年）以共和党对国会的主导为特征。在此期间，游说活动日益活跃，尤其在尤利西斯·S·格兰特总统执政时期，有影响力的游说团体积极倡导铁路补贴和羊毛关税政策。[28] 移民潮和高出生率使公民人数迅速增长，国家也以前所未有的速度扩张。

The Progressive Era was characterized by strong party leadership in both houses of Congress and calls for reform; sometimes reformers said lobbyists corrupted politics.^[29] The position of Speaker of the House became extremely powerful under leaders such as Thomas Reed in 1890 and Joseph Gurney Cannon.
【参考译文】进步主义时代（Progressive Era）的特点是国会两院均拥有强有力的政党领导，并涌现出广泛的改革呼声；一些改革者指责游说集团腐蚀了政治。[29] 在托马斯·里德（Thomas Reed，1890年）和约瑟夫·加尼·坎农（Joseph Gurney Cannon）等领导人任内，众议院议长一职变得极具权势。

1.3 20世纪 | 20th century

By the beginning of the 20th century, party structures and leadership emerged as key organizers of Senate proceedings.^[31]
【参考译文】到20世纪初，政党结构和领导层已成为参议院议事程序的关键组织力量。[31]

A system of seniority, in which long-time members of Congress gained more and more power, encouraged politicians of both parties to seek long terms. Committee chairmen remained influential in both houses until the reforms of the 1970s.^[32]
【参考译文】资历制度（seniority system）逐渐形成——即在国会任职时间越长的议员获得越多权力——这促使两党政治人物都力求长期连任。直到1970年代改革之前，委员会主席在两院中始终具有重要影响力。[32]

Important structural changes included the direct popular election of senators according to the Seventeenth Amendment,^[18] ratified on April 8, 1913. Supreme Court decisions based on the Constitution’s commerce clause expanded congressional power to regulate the economy.^[33] One effect of popular election of senators was to reduce the difference between the House and Senate in terms of their link to the electorate.^[34] Lame duck reforms according to the Twentieth Amendment reduced the power of defeated and retiring members of Congress to wield influence despite their lack of accountability.^[35]
【参考译文】重要的结构性变化包括根据1913年4月8日批准的《美国宪法第十七条修正案》实行参议员由人民直接选举产生。[18] 最高法院依据宪法中的“商业条款”（commerce clause）作出的一系列判决，扩大了国会对经济的监管权力。[33] 参议员直选的一个影响是缩小了众议院与参议院在与选民联系方面的差异。[34] 此外，《第二十条修正案》对“跛脚鸭”（lame duck）任期进行改革，削弱了那些已落选或即将退休但尚未离任的议员在缺乏问责的情况下继续施加影响的能力。[35]

The Great Depression ushered in President Franklin Roosevelt and strong control by Democrats^[36] and historic New Deal policies. Roosevelt‘s election in 1932 marked a shift in government power towards the executive branch. Numerous New Deal initiatives came from the White House rather initiated by Congress.^[37] President Roosevelt pushed his agenda in Congress by detailing Executive Branch staff to friendly Senate committees (a practice that ended with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).^[38] The Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress for many years.^[39][40][41] During this time, Republicans and conservative southern Democrats^[42] formed the Conservative Coalition.^[41][43] Democrats maintained control of Congress during World War II.^[44][45]
【参考译文】大萧条时期迎来了富兰克林·罗斯福总统的上台以及民主党对政府的强力掌控，[36] 并推动了具有历史意义的“新政”（New Deal）政策。1932年罗斯福当选标志着政府权力向行政部门转移。许多新政举措源自白宫，而非由国会发起。[37] 罗斯福通过将行政分支工作人员安排到友好的参议院委员会来推动其议程（这一做法在1946年《立法重组法案》通过后终止）。[38] 民主党多年掌控国会两院。[39][40][41] 在此期间，共和党人与保守派南方民主党人[42]组成了“保守派联盟”（Conservative Coalition）。[41][43] 第二次世界大战期间，民主党继续保持对国会的控制。[44][45]

Congress struggled with efficiency in the postwar era partly by reducing the number of standing congressional committees.^[46] Southern Democrats became a powerful force in many influential committees although political power alternated between Republicans and Democrats during these years. More complex issues required greater specialization and expertise, such as space flight and atomic energy policy.^[46] Senator Joseph McCarthy exploited the fear of communism during the Second Red Scare and conducted televised hearings.^[47][48] In 1960, Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy narrowly won the presidency and power shifted again to the Democrats who dominated both chambers of Congress from 1961 to 1980, and retained a consistent majority in the House from 1955 to 1994.^[49]
【参考译文】战后时期，国会效率面临挑战，部分原因是减少了常设委员会的数量。[46] 尽管这些年两党轮流执政，南方民主党人在多个有影响力的委员会中仍是一股强大势力。随着太空飞行、原子能政策等议题日益复杂，国会工作需要更高的专业性和技术专长。[46] 参议员约瑟夫·麦卡锡（Joseph McCarthy）在第二次“红色恐慌”（Second Red Scare）期间利用民众对共产主义的恐惧，主持了电视直播的听证会。[47][48] 1960年，民主党候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪以微弱优势赢得总统职位，权力再次转向民主党。民主党从1961年至1980年主导国会两院，并自1955年至1994年持续掌控众议院多数席位。[49]

Congress enacted Johnson’s Great Society program to fight poverty and hunger. The Watergate Scandal had a powerful effect of waking up a somewhat dormant Congress which investigated presidential wrongdoing and coverups; the scandal “substantially reshaped” relations between the branches of government, suggested political scientist Bruce J. Schulman.^[50] Partisanship returned, particularly after 1994; one analyst attributes partisan infighting to slim congressional majorities which discouraged friendly social gatherings in meeting rooms such as the Board of Education.^[7] Congress began reasserting its authority.^[37][51]
【参考译文】国会随后通过了林登·约翰逊总统的“伟大社会”（Great Society）计划，以应对贫困与饥饿问题。水门事件（Watergate Scandal）极大地唤醒了此前相对沉寂的国会，促使其调查总统的不当行为与掩盖行为；政治学家布鲁斯·J·舒尔曼（Bruce J. Schulman）指出，该丑闻“实质性地重塑了”政府各分支之间的关系。[50] 此后党派对立重新加剧，尤其在1994年之后；有分析认为，微弱的国会多数席位导致议员之间缺乏社交互动（例如不再在教育部会议室等场所举行友好聚会），从而加剧了党派内斗。[7] 国会开始重新主张自身权威。[37][51]

Lobbying became a big factor despite the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. Political action committees or PACs could make substantive donations to congressional candidates via such means as soft money contributions.^[52] While soft money funds were not given to specific campaigns for candidates, the money often benefited candidates substantially in an indirect way and helped reelect candidates.^[52] Reforms such as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act limited campaign donations but did not limit soft money contributions.^[53] One source suggests post-Watergate laws amended in 1974 meant to reduce the “influence of wealthy contributors and end payoffs” instead “legitimized PACs” since they “enabled individuals to band together in support of candidates”.^[54]
【参考译文】尽管1971年《联邦竞选法》（Federal Election Campaign Act）出台，游说活动仍成为重大影响因素。政治行动委员会（PACs）可通过“软钱”（soft money）等方式向国会候选人提供大量捐款。[52] 虽然软钱并非直接捐给特定候选人竞选活动，但往往间接大幅助益候选人，并帮助其连任。[52] 2002年《两党竞选改革法案》（Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act）虽限制了竞选捐款，却未禁止软钱捐赠。[53] 有观点指出，1974年修订的水门事件后法律本意是“减少富有捐助者的影响力并杜绝权钱交易”，结果反而“使PAC合法化”，因为这些法律“允许个人联合起来支持候选人”。[54]

From 1974 to 1984, PACs grew from 608 to 3,803 and donations leaped from $12.5 million to $120 million^[54][55][56] along with concern over PAC influence in Congress.^[57][58] In 2009, there were 4,600 business, labor and special-interest PACs^[59] including ones for lawyers, electricians, and real estate brokers.^[60] From 2007 to 2008, 175 members of Congress received “half or more of their campaign cash” from PACs.^[59][61][62]
【参考译文】从1974年到1984年，PAC数量从608个激增至3,803个，捐款总额从1,250万美元跃升至1.2亿美元，[54][55][56] 引发了对PAC在国会中影响力的担忧。[57][58] 到2009年，已有4,600个来自企业、工会及特殊利益集团的PAC，[59] 包括律师、电工和房地产经纪人的PAC。[60] 在2007至2008年间，175名国会议员“一半或更多”的竞选资金来自PAC。[59][61][62]

From 1970 to 2009, the House expanded delegates, along with their powers and privileges representing U.S. citizens in non-state areas, beginning with representation on committees for Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner in 1970. In 1971, a delegate for the District of Columbia was authorized, and in 1972 new delegate positions were established for U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam. In 1978, an additional delegate for American Samoa were added.
【参考译文】1970年至2009年间，众议院逐步扩大了无投票权代表（delegates）的设置及其权力和特权，以代表非州属地区的美国公民。1970年，波多黎各常驻专员首次获准加入委员会；1971年授权设立哥伦比亚特区代表；1972年为美属维尔京群岛和关岛设立新代表职位；1978年又增设美属萨摩亚代表。

In the late 20th century, the media became more important in Congress’s work.^[63] Analyst Michael Schudson suggested that greater publicity undermined the power of political parties and caused “more roads to open up in Congress for individual representatives to influence decisions”.^[63] Norman Ornstein suggested that media prominence led to a greater emphasis on the negative and sensational side of Congress, and referred to this as the tabloidization of media coverage.^[8] Others saw pressure to squeeze a political position into a thirty-second soundbite.^[64]
【参考译文】20世纪后期，媒体在国会运作中的作用日益突出。[63] 分析家迈克尔·舒德森（Michael Schudson）认为，更多曝光削弱了政党的权力，使“国会中出现了更多路径，让个别议员能够影响决策”。[63] 诺曼·奥恩斯坦（Norman Ornstein）则指出，媒体关注度的提升导致报道更侧重国会的负面和 sensational（耸人听闻）一面，他称之为“媒体覆盖的八卦化”（tabloidization）。[8] 还有人注意到，议员面临将政治立场压缩成30秒“金句”（soundbite）的压力。[64]

A report characterized Congress in 2013 as unproductive, gridlocked, and “setting records for futility”.^[65] In October 2013, with Congress unable to compromise, the government was shut down for several weeks and risked a serious default on debt payments, causing 60% of the public to say they would “fire every member of Congress” including their own representative.^[66] One report suggested Congress posed the “biggest risk to the U.S. economy” because of its brinksmanship, “down-to-the-wire budget and debt crises” and “indiscriminate spending cuts”, resulting in slowed economic activity and keeping up to two million people unemployed.^[67] There has been increasing public dissatisfaction with Congress,^[68] with extremely low approval ratings^[69][70] which dropped to 5% in October 2013.^[71]
【参考译文】一份报告将2013年的国会描述为“低效、僵局频发，并创下无能的新纪录”。[65] 2013年10月，由于国会无法达成妥协，联邦政府停摆数周，并一度濒临债务违约风险，导致60%的公众表示“希望解雇所有国会议员”，包括他们自己的代表。[66] 有报告指出，国会因其“边缘政策”（brinksmanship）、“最后一刻才解决的预算与债务危机”以及“不加区分的支出削减”，成为“对美国经济的最大风险”，不仅拖慢了经济增长，还导致最多达200万人失业。[67] 公众对国会的不满持续上升，[68] 支持率跌至历史低点——2013年10月 approval rating（支持率）仅为5%。[69][70][71]

1.4 21世纪 | 21st century

In 2009, Congress authorized another delegate for the Northern Mariana Islands. These six members of Congress enjoy floor privileges to introduce bills and resolutions, and in recent Congresses they vote in permanent and select committees, in party caucuses and in joint conferences with the Senate. They have Capitol Hill offices, staff and two annual appointments to each of the four military academies. While their votes are constitutional when Congress authorizes their House Committee of the Whole votes, recent Congresses have not allowed for that, and they cannot vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.^[73]
【参考译文】2009年，国会授权为北马里亚纳群岛增设一名代表。这六名无投票权的国会议员（包括来自波多黎各、哥伦比亚特区、美属维尔京群岛、关岛、美属萨摩亚和北马里亚纳群岛的代表）享有在众议院议事厅发言、提出法案和决议案的权利；在近年的国会中，他们可在常设委员会和特别委员会、党内党团会议以及与参议院举行的联席会议上投票。他们拥有国会山办公室、配备工作人员，并每年可向四所军事学院各推荐两名学员。尽管当国会授权他们在“全体委员会”（Committee of the Whole）中投票时，其投票具有合宪性，但近年来的国会并未允许此类投票，因此当众议院以正式全体会议（House of Representatives）形式开会时，他们无权投票。[73]

On January 6, 2021, Congress gathered to confirm the election of Joe Biden, when supporters of the outgoing president Donald Trump attacked the building. The session of Congress ended prematurely, and Congress representatives evacuated. Trump supporters occupied Congress until D.C police evacuated the area. The event was the first time since the Burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812 that the United States Congress was forcefully occupied.^[74]
【参考译文】2021年1月6日，国会召开会议确认乔·拜登当选总统，期间时任总统唐纳德·特朗普的支持者袭击了国会大厦。会议被迫提前中断，国会议员紧急疏散。特朗普支持者一度占领国会大厦，直至华盛顿特区警方清空该区域。这是自1812年战争期间英军火烧华盛顿以来，美国国会首次遭到暴力强行占领。[74]

This section is an excerpt from Democratic backsliding in the United States § Congress.
【参考译文】以下内容摘自《美国民主倒退》条目下的“国会”部分。

Despite the importance of congress outlined in Article One, congress has lost power to the executive and judiciary both intentionally and unintentionally.^{[75][76][77][78][79]}
【参考译文】尽管《美国宪法》第一条明确强调了国会的重要性，但国会的权力已逐渐被行政和司法分支削弱——这种削弱既有有意为之，也有无意造成的结果。[75][76][77][78][79]

2. 国会中的女性 | Women in Congress

Various social and structural barriers have prevented women from gaining seats in Congress. In the early 20th century, women’s domestic roles and the inability to vote forestalled opportunities to run for and hold public office. The two party system and the lack of term limits favored incumbent white men, making the widow’s succession – in which a woman temporarily took over a seat vacated by the death of her husband – the most common path to Congress for white women.^[80]
【参考译文】各种社会和结构性障碍长期阻碍女性获得国会席位。20世纪初，女性被局限于家庭角色，且尚无选举权，这使她们难以竞选或担任公职。两党制体系和缺乏任期限制有利于在任的白人男性议员，因此“遗孀继任”（widow’s succession）——即丈夫去世后由其遗孀暂时接替议席——成为白人女性进入国会最常见的途径。[80]

Women candidates began making substantial inroads in the later 20th century, due in part to new political support mechanisms and public awareness of their underrepresentation in Congress.^[81] Recruitment and financial support for women candidates were rare until the second-wave feminism movement, when activists moved into electoral politics. Beginning in the 1970s, donors and political action committees like EMILY’s List began recruiting, training and funding women candidates. Watershed political moments like the confirmation of Clarence Thomas and the 2016 presidential election created momentum for women candidates, resulting in the Year of the Woman and the election of members of The Squad, respectively.^[82][83]
【参考译文】到了20世纪后期，女性候选人开始取得显著进展，部分原因在于新的政治支持机制出现，以及公众对女性在国会中代表性不足问题的认识提高。[81] 在第二波女权主义运动兴起之前，针对女性候选人的招募和资金支持极为罕见；随着女权活动人士转向选举政治，情况开始改变。自1970年代起，诸如“艾米莉名单”（EMILY’s List）等政治行动委员会和捐助者开始积极招募、培训并资助女性候选人。一些关键政治事件——如克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）大法官的确认听证会和2016年总统大选——进一步推动了女性参政浪潮，分别促成了“女性之年”（Year of the Woman）和“小队”（The Squad）成员当选国会。[82][83]

Women of color faced additional challenges that made their ascension to Congress even more difficult. Jim Crow laws, voter suppression and other forms of structural racism made it virtually impossible for women of color to reach Congress prior to 1965. The passage of the Voting Rights Act that year, and the elimination of race-based immigration laws in the 1960s opened the possibility for Black, Asian American, Latina and other non-white women candidates to run for Congress.^[84]
【参考译文】有色人种女性面临更多额外挑战，使其进入国会的道路更加艰难。在1965年之前，吉姆·克劳法（Jim Crow laws）、选民压制以及其他形式的系统性种族主义几乎完全阻断了有色人种女性进入国会的可能性。1965年《投票权法案》（Voting Rights Act）的通过，以及1960年代废除基于种族的移民法律，才为非裔、亚裔、拉丁裔及其他非白人女性候选人参选国会打开了大门。[84]

Racially polarized voting, racial stereotypes and lack of institutional support still prevent women of color from reaching Congress as easily as white people. Senate elections, which require victories in statewide electorates, have been particularly difficult for women of color.^[85] Carol Moseley Braun became the first woman of color to reach the Senate in 1993. The second, Mazie Hirono, won in 2013.
【参考译文】然而，至今种族分化投票（racially polarized voting）、种族刻板印象以及制度性支持的缺乏，仍使有色人种女性比白人更难进入国会。尤其在参议院选举中——需赢得全州范围选民支持——对有色人种女性而言尤为困难。[85] 1993年，卡罗尔·莫斯利·布劳恩（Carol Moseley Braun）成为首位进入参议院的有色人种女性；第二位是2013年当选的广野庆子（Mazie Hirono）。

In 2021, Kamala Harris became the first female President of the Senate, which came with her role as the first female Vice President of the United States.
【参考译文】2021年，卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）就任美国副总统，同时成为首位女性参议院议长（President of the Senate）。

3. 职责 | Role

3.1 权力 | Powers

Main article: Powers of the United States Congress【主条目：美国国会的权力】

3.1.1 概述 | Overview

Article One of the Constitution creates and sets forth the structure and most of the powers of Congress. Sections One through Six describe how Congress is elected and gives each House the power to create its own structure. Section Seven lays out the process for creating laws, and Section Eight enumerates numerous powers. Section Nine is a list of powers Congress does not have, and Section Ten enumerates powers of the state, some of which may only be granted by Congress.^[86] Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
【参考译文】《美国宪法》第一条创设了国会，并规定了其结构及大部分权力。第一至第六款说明了国会的选举方式，并赋予两院各自制定内部组织规则的权力。第七款规定了立法程序，第八款则列举了国会的诸多具体权力。第九款列出了国会不得行使的权力，第十款则列举了各州拥有的权力，其中某些权力须经国会批准方可行使。[86] 此后通过的宪法修正案进一步扩大了国会的权力。此外，国会还拥有源自宪法“必要与适当条款”（Necessary and Proper Clause）的默示权力（implied powers）。

Congress has authority over financial and budgetary policy through the enumerated power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. There is vast authority over budgets, although analyst Eric Patashnik suggested that much of Congress’s power to manage the budget has been lost when the welfare state expanded since “entitlements were institutionally detached from Congress’s ordinary legislative routine and rhythm.”^[87] Another factor leading to less control over the budget was a Keynesian belief that balanced budgets were unnecessary.^[87]
【参考译文】国会通过宪法明示的征税权——“征收赋税、关税、进口税和消费税，以偿付国债并为合众国的共同防务和全民福利提供经费”——掌握财政与预算政策的权威。尽管如此，分析人士埃里克·帕塔什尼克（Eric Patashnik）指出，随着福利国家的扩张，“法定福利项目（entitlements）在制度上脱离了国会常规的立法节奏”，导致国会管理预算的大部分权力实际上已被削弱。[87] 另一个削弱国会预算控制力的因素是凯恩斯主义观点，即认为平衡预算是不必要的。[87]

The Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 extended congressional power of taxation to include income taxes without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.^[88] The Constitution also grants Congress the exclusive power to appropriate funds, and this power of the purse is one of Congress’s primary checks on the executive branch.^[88] Congress can borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money.^[89] Generally, the Senate and the House of Representatives have equal legislative authority, although only the House may originate revenue and appropriation bills.^[4]
【参考译文】1913年通过的《第十六条修正案》将国会的征税权扩展至所得税，且无需在各州之间按比例分配，也无需考虑人口普查或统计结果。[88] 宪法还赋予国会专属的拨款权（appropriations power），这项“钱袋权”（power of the purse）是国会制约行政部门的主要手段之一。[88] 国会还可代表美国信用举债、管理对外及州际贸易，并铸造货币。[89] 总体而言，参议院与众议院拥有平等的立法权，但只有众议院有权提出税收和拨款法案。[4]

Congress has an important role in national defense, including the exclusive power to declare war, to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military.^[90] Some critics charge that the executive branch has usurped Congress’s constitutionally defined task of declaring war.^[91] While historically presidents initiated the process for going to war, they asked for and received formal war declarations from Congress for the War of 1812, the Mexican–American War, the Spanish–American War, World War I, and World War II,^[92] although President Theodore Roosevelt‘s military move into Panama in 1903 did not get congressional approval.^[92] In the early days after the North Korean invasion of 1950, President Truman described the American response as a “police action”.^[93] According to Time magazine in 1970, “U.S. presidents [had] ordered troops into position or action without a formal congressional declaration a total of 149 times.”^[92] In 1993, Michael Kinsley wrote that “Congress’s war power has become the most flagrantly disregarded provision in the Constitution,” and that the “real erosion [of Congress’s war power] began after World War II.”^[94][95][96] Disagreement about the extent of congressional versus presidential power regarding war has been present periodically throughout the nation’s history.^[97]
【参考译文】国会在国防事务中扮演关键角色，包括专属的宣战权、组建和维持武装部队的权力，以及制定军事法规的权力。[90] 一些批评者指责行政部门篡夺了宪法明确赋予国会的宣战权。[91] 历史上，总统虽常率先启动战争程序，但在1812年战争、美墨战争、美西战争、第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战中，均正式请求并获得了国会的宣战授权。[92] 不过，1903年西奥多·罗斯福总统出兵巴拿马的行动并未获得国会批准。[92] 1950年朝鲜战争初期，杜鲁门总统将美军行动称为“警察行动”。[93] 据《时代》杂志1970年报道，“美国总统在未经国会正式宣战的情况下，已149次下令军队部署或采取行动。”[92] 1993年，迈克尔·金斯利（Michael Kinsley）写道：“国会的战争权已成为宪法中最被公然忽视的条款”，而“真正的侵蚀始于二战之后”。[94][95][96] 关于国会与总统在战争权力上的界限之争，在美国历史上周期性地反复出现。[97]

Congress can establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish Courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”. Article Four gives Congress the power to admit new states into the Union.
【参考译文】国会还可设立邮局和邮政道路、授予专利与版权、制定度量衡标准、设立低于最高法院的联邦法院，并“制定一切必要而适当的法律，以执行上述各项权力，以及本宪法授予合众国政府或其任何部门或官员的其他一切权力”。《宪法》第四条还赋予国会接纳新州加入联邦的权力。

One of Congress’s foremost non-legislative functions is the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch.^[98] Congressional oversight is usually delegated to committees and is facilitated by Congress’s subpoena power.^[99] Some critics have charged that Congress has in some instances failed to do an adequate job of overseeing the other branches of government. In the Plame affair, critics including Representative Henry A. Waxman charged that Congress was not doing an adequate job of oversight in this case.^[100] There have been concerns about congressional oversight of executive actions such as warrantless wiretapping, although others respond that Congress did investigate the legality of presidential decisions.^[101] Political scientists Ornstein and Mann suggested that oversight functions do not help members of Congress win reelection. Congress also has the exclusive power of removal, allowing impeachment and removal of the president, federal judges and other federal officers.^[102]
【参考译文】国会最重要的非立法职能之一是对行政部门进行调查与监督。[98] 国会监督通常委托给各委员会，并通过国会的传票权（subpoena power）予以实施。[99] 一些批评者指出，国会在某些情况下未能充分履行对其他政府部门的监督职责。例如在“普莱姆事件”（Plame affair）中，众议员亨利·A·韦克斯曼（Henry A. Waxman）等人批评国会未能有效开展监督。[100] 人们也曾担忧国会对诸如无证监听等行政行为监督不力，尽管也有观点认为国会确实调查过总统决策的合法性。[101] 政治学者诺曼·奥恩斯坦（Norman Ornstein）和托马斯·曼（Thomas Mann）指出，监督职能并不能帮助国会议员赢得连任。此外，国会还拥有专属的罢免权，可通过对总统、联邦法官及其他联邦官员的弹劾将其免职。[102]

There have been charges that presidents acting under the doctrine of the unitary executive have assumed important legislative and budgetary powers that should belong to Congress.^[103] So-called signing statements are one way in which a president can “tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch”, according to one account.^[104] Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,^[105] have made public statements when signing congressional legislation about how they understand a bill or plan to execute it, and commentators, including the American Bar Association, have described this practice as against the spirit of the Constitution.^[106][107] There have been concerns that presidential authority to cope with financial crises is eclipsing the power of Congress.^[108] In 2008, George F. Will called the Capitol building a “tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters”.^[109]
【参考译文】有指控称，总统依据“单一行政官理论”（unitary executive doctrine）行事时，擅自攫取了本应属于国会的立法与预算权力。[103] 有评论认为，所谓“签署声明”（signing statements）是总统“将国会与白宫之间的权力天平略微向行政部门倾斜”的一种方式。[104] 包括罗纳德·里根、乔治·H·W·布什、比尔·克林顿和乔治·W·布什在内的多位前总统，[105] 都曾在签署国会法案时发表公开声明，解释其对法案的理解或执行计划。美国律师协会等评论者认为，这种做法违背了宪法精神。[106][107] 还有人担忧，总统应对金融危机的权限正在削弱国会的权力。[108] 2008年，乔治·F·威尔（George F. Will）甚至称国会大厦是“一个过时理念——即立法机构仍具重要性——的坟墓”。[109]

3.1.2 明示权力 | Enumeration

The Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress in detail. In addition, other congressional powers have been granted, or confirmed, by constitutional amendments. The Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) gave Congress authority to enact legislation to enforce rights of African Americans, including voting rights, due process, and equal protection under the law.^[110] Generally militia forces are controlled by state governments, not Congress.^[111]
【参考译文】宪法详细列举了国会的权力。此外，若干宪法修正案也授予或确认了国会的其他权力。《第十三修正案》（1865年）、《第十四修正案》（1868年）和《第十五修正案》（1870年）授权国会制定法律，以保障非裔美国人的权利，包括投票权、正当程序和平等法律保护。[110] 一般来说，民兵力量由各州政府而非国会控制。[111]

美国宪法第一条第八款到第一条结束的条文，赋予国会在制定政策中所必需的权力：包括征税、贷款、规范州际和对外贸易、创建移民程序、立法规范破产、发行货币、规范度量衡、惩罚伪币制造者、设立邮局和驿路、保护版权、建立法院系统、惩罚海盗、宣战、募集、维持和规范陆军、海军和民兵、镇压叛乱和击退侵略等等。其中比较重要的，包括征税、规范州际和对外贸易和宣战。其它的宪法条款赋予国会规范其自身、规范美国选举人团、推翻总统的否决的权力。国会也可以规范州际关系、最高法院复审案件的范围以及提出美国宪法修正案。

后续的宪法修正案增加了一些国会的权力，例如在总统选举中没有候选人获得多数选票时，选择总统和副总统（第十二条）、征收所得税（第十六条）、在总统死亡或失去工作能力时决定代理总统（第二十和第二十五条）和统治华盛顿哥伦比亚特区（第二十三条）。

国会的两院各自拥有部分权力，例如

• 参议院：批准或拒绝批准条约、解除已签署条约、批准或者拒绝批准总统提名的大使、美国最高法院大法官，以及其他执行部门官员^{[但是参议院可以委托总统或者其他执行部门官员处理对低层官员的提名]}、在总统及下属官员被弹劾时进行审判^{[如果被弹劾的是总统，必须由大法官主持。经2/3参议员同意，弹劾才能有效，但弹劾的处理权限最高只能是撤职和撤消合众国荣誉职务]}。
• 众议院：提出和财政有关的动议、宣战权、终战权（又称撤兵权）、在总统选举中没有候选人获得多数选票时选择总统和副总统、弹劾总统、首席大法官及主要官员。

3.1.3 默示权力与商业条款 | Implicit, commerce clause

Congress also has implied powers deriving from the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause which permit Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.^[112] Broad interpretations of this clause and of the Commerce Clause, the enumerated power to regulate commerce, in rulings such as McCulloch v. Maryland, have effectively widened the scope of Congress’s legislative authority far beyond that prescribed in Section Eight.^[113][114]
【参考译文】国会还拥有源自宪法“必要与适当条款”的默示权力，即“制定一切必要而适当的法律，以执行前述各项权力，以及本宪法授予合众国政府或其任何部门或官员的其他一切权力”。[112] 在诸如“麦卡洛克诉马里兰州案”（McCulloch v. Maryland）等判例中，法院对“必要与适当条款”以及宪法明示的“商业条款”（即管理州际及对外贸易的权力）作出宽泛解释，极大地扩展了国会的立法权限，远超第八款所列范围。[113][114]

3.1.4 属地治理 | Territorial government

Main articles: Territories of the United States and Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives【主条目：美国领地、美国众议院无投票权代表】

Constitutional responsibility for the oversight of Washington, D.C., the federal district and national capital, and the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands rests with Congress.^[115] The republican form of government in territories is devolved by congressional statute to the respective territories including direct election of governors, the D.C. mayor and locally elective territorial legislatures.^[116]
【参考译文】宪法规定，国会负责监督华盛顿哥伦比亚特区（联邦直辖区兼国家首都）以及关岛、美属萨摩亚、波多黎各、美属维尔京群岛和北马里亚纳群岛等美国领地。[115] 各领地的共和政体由国会通过法律授权下放，包括直接选举总督（或哥伦比亚特区市长）以及选举产生地方立法机构。[116]

Each territory and Washington, D.C., elects a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives as they have throughout congressional history. They “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives”. They are assigned offices and allowances for staff, participate in debate, and appoint constituents to the four military service academies for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.^[117]
【参考译文】每个领地及华盛顿特区均选举一名无投票权代表进入美国众议院，这一做法贯穿国会历史。他们“除在众议院全体会议（House of Representatives）表决时无投票权外，享有与其他众议员相同的权力”。他们拥有办公室和工作人员津贴，可参与辩论，并可为其选区居民提名进入陆军、海军、空军和海岸警卫队四所军事学院的学员名额。[117]

Washington, D.C., citizens alone among U.S. territories have the right to directly vote for the President of the United States, although the Democratic and Republican political parties nominate their presidential candidates at national conventions which include delegates from the five major territories.^[118]
【参考译文】在所有美国领地中，唯有华盛顿特区居民拥有直接选举美国总统的权利。尽管如此，民主党和共和党在全国代表大会上提名总统候选人时，均包括来自五大主要领地的代表。[118]

3.2 制衡机制 | Checks and balances

Main article: U.S. Congress in relation to the president and Supreme Court
【参考译文】主条目：美国国会与总统及最高法院的关系

Representative Lee H. Hamilton explained how Congress functions within the federal government:
【参考译文】众议员李·H·汉密尔顿（Lee H. Hamilton）解释了国会在联邦政府中的运作方式：

To me the key to understanding it is balance. The founders went to great lengths to balance institutions against each other – balancing powers among the three branches: Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court; between the House of Representatives and the Senate; between the federal government and the states; among states of different sizes and regions with different interests; between the powers of government and the rights of citizens, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights … No one part of government dominates the other.^[5]: 6

【参考译文】“在我看来，理解它的关键在于‘平衡’。建国者们煞费苦心地在各机构之间建立平衡——在国会、总统和最高法院这三个分支之间；在众议院与参议院之间；在联邦政府与各州之间；在不同规模、不同地区、拥有不同利益的州之间；以及在政府权力与《权利法案》所明确保障的公民权利之间……没有任何一个政府部门能凌驾于其他部门之上。”[5]: 6

The Constitution provides checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. Its authors expected the greater power to lie with Congress as described in Article One.^[5][119]
【参考译文】宪法在联邦政府三大分支之间设立了制衡机制。制宪者原本预期，如第一条所述，国会将拥有更大的权力。[5][119]

The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from period to period depending on factors such as congressional leadership, presidential political influence, historical circumstances such as war, and individual initiative by members of Congress. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson made the presidency less powerful than Congress for a considerable period afterwards.^[120] The 20th and 21st centuries have seen the rise of presidential power under politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.^[121] Congress restricted presidential power with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution. The presidency remains considerably more powerful today than during the 19th century.^[5][121]
【参考译文】国会对总统的影响力因时代而异，取决于诸如国会领导力、总统的政治影响力、战争等历史背景，以及国会议员个人的主动性等因素。安德鲁·约翰逊总统遭弹劾后，总统权力一度显著弱于国会。[120] 然而，20世纪和21世纪见证了总统权力的扩张，西奥多·罗斯福、伍德罗·威尔逊、富兰克林·D·罗斯福、理查德·尼克松、罗纳德·里根和乔治·W·布什等总统均强化了行政权。[121] 国会也通过立法限制总统权力，例如1974年《国会预算与扣押控制法》和《战争权力决议案》。尽管如此，今天的总统权力仍远大于19世纪时期。[5][121]

Executive branch officials are often loath to reveal sensitive information to members of Congress because of concern that information could not be kept secret; in return, knowing they may be in the dark about executive branch activity, congressional officials are more likely to distrust their counterparts in executive agencies.^[122] Many government actions require fast coordinated effort by many agencies, and this is a task that Congress is ill-suited for. Congress is slow, open, divided, and not well matched to handle more rapid executive action or do a good job of overseeing such activity, according to one analysis.^[123]
【参考译文】行政部门官员往往不愿向国会议员透露敏感信息，担心信息无法保密；反过来，由于可能对行政活动一无所知，国会官员更倾向于不信任行政机构的同僚。[122] 许多政府行动需要多个机构快速协调配合，而国会在这方面并不擅长。有分析指出，国会节奏缓慢、程序公开、内部意见分歧，难以应对迅速的行政行动，也难以有效监督此类行动。[123]

The Constitution concentrates removal powers in the Congress by empowering and obligating the House of Representatives to impeach executive or judicial officials for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Impeachment is a formal accusation of unlawful activity by a civil officer or government official. The Senate is constitutionally empowered and obligated to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this. A convicted party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law.
【参考译文】宪法将罢免权集中于国会：授权并要求众议院对犯有“叛国、贿赂或其他重罪与轻罪”（Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors）的行政或司法官员提出弹劾。弹劾是对公职人员非法行为的正式指控。参议院则被宪法授权并有义务审理所有弹劾案。众议院只需简单多数即可通过弹劾；参议院则需三分之二多数才能定罪。一旦定罪，该官员自动被免职；此外，参议院还可规定其终身不得再担任公职。弹劾程序不能施加超出此范围的惩罚。被定罪者仍可在普通法院面临刑事处罚。

In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial. Only three presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1999, Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. The trials of Johnson, Clinton, and the 2019 trial of Trump all ended in acquittal; in Johnson’s case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated his removal from office.
【参考译文】在美国历史上，众议院共弹劾了16名官员，其中7人被定罪；另有1人在参议院完成审判前辞职。仅有三位总统曾遭弹劾：1868年的安德鲁·约翰逊、1999年的比尔·克林顿、2019年和2021年的唐纳德·特朗普。约翰逊、克林顿及特朗普2019年的弹劾审判均以无罪告终；约翰逊案中，参议院仅以一票之差未达定罪所需的三分之二多数。1974年，理查德·尼克松在众议院司法委员会启动弹劾程序后主动辞职。

The Senate has an important check on the executive power by confirming Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”. It confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. As a result, presidential arm-twisting of senators can happen before a key vote; for example, President Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, urged her former senate colleagues to approve a nuclear arms treaty with Russia in 2010.^[124] The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the ratification of treaties or the appointment of federal officials, other than in filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president; in such a case, a majority vote in each House is required to confirm a president’s nomination of a vice president.^[4]
【参考译文】参议院对行政权的重要制衡体现在“根据参议院的建议与同意”（by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate）批准内阁成员、法官及其他高级官员的任命。虽然总统提名大多获得确认，但否决也并非罕见。此外，总统谈判达成的条约必须经参议院三分之二多数批准方能生效。因此，在关键投票前，总统常会对参议员施加压力；例如，2010年奥巴马总统的国务卿希拉里·克林顿曾敦促她昔日的参议院同事批准一项与俄罗斯的核武器条约。[124] 众议院在条约批准和联邦官员任命方面没有正式角色，唯一的例外是当副总统职位出现空缺时——此时总统提名的副总统人选须经两院各自以多数票通过方可确认。[4]

In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution did not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review. The notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78. Originalists on the Supreme Court have argued that if the constitution does not say something explicitly it is unconstitutional to infer what it should, might, or could have said.^[125] Judicial review means that the Supreme Court can nullify a congressional law. It is a huge check by the courts on the legislative authority and limits congressional power substantially. In 1857, for example, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of a congressional act of 1820 in its Dred Scott decision.^[126] At the same time, the Supreme Court can extend congressional power through its constitutional interpretations.
【参考译文】1803年，最高法院在“马伯里诉麦迪逊案”（Marbury v. Madison）中确立了对联邦法律的司法审查权，裁定国会不能授予法院违宪的权力。尽管宪法并未明文规定法院可行使司法审查，但建国先贤已预见到这一理念。例如，亚历山大·汉密尔顿在《联邦党人文集》第78篇中就详细阐述过该原则。最高法院中的原旨主义者认为，若宪法未明确表述某项内容，则不应推断其隐含之意。[125] 司法审查意味着最高法院可宣布国会法律无效，这是法院对立法权的重大制约，极大限制了国会的权力。例如，1857年，最高法院在“德雷德·斯科特案”（Dred Scott decision）中推翻了1820年国会法案的部分条款。[126] 同时，最高法院也可通过宪法解释扩展国会的权力。

The congressional inquiry into St. Clair’s Defeat of 1791 was the first congressional investigation of the executive branch.^[127] Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, subpoena people to testify when investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate.^[128][129] Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public (the House and Senate intelligence committees are the exception); important hearings are widely reported in the mass media and transcripts published a few months afterwards.^[129] Congress, in the course of studying possible laws and investigating matters, generates an incredible amount of information in various forms, and can be described as a publisher.^[130] Indeed, it publishes House and Senate reports^[130] and maintains databases which are updated irregularly with publications in a variety of electronic formats.^[130]
【参考译文】1791年对“圣克莱尔惨败”（St. Clair’s Defeat）事件的调查，是国会首次对行政部门展开的调查。[127] 此类调查旨在收集未来立法所需信息、评估已通过法律的实施效果，并审查其他分支官员的资格与表现。委员会可举行听证会，必要时可传唤证人作证。[128][129] 拒绝作证者可能被控“藐视国会”，作伪证者则可能被控伪证罪。除情报委员会外，大多数听证会对公众开放；重要听证会常被大众媒体广泛报道，文字记录通常数月后公布。[129] 国会在研究立法和调查事务过程中产生大量信息，堪称一个“出版机构”。[130] 它发布众议院和参议院报告，[130] 并维护不定期更新的数据库，以多种电子格式提供各类出版物。[130]

Congress also plays a role in presidential elections. Both Houses meet in joint session on the sixth day of January following a presidential election to count the electoral votes, and there are procedures to follow if no candidate wins a majority.^[4]
【参考译文】国会在总统选举中也扮演一定角色。每届总统大选后的次年1月6日，两院举行联席会议清点选举人票；若无候选人获得多数票，则按既定程序处理。[4]

The main result of congressional activity is the creation of laws,^[131] most of which are contained in the United States Code, arranged by subject matter alphabetically under fifty title headings to present the laws “in a concise and usable form”.^[4]
【参考译文】国会活动的主要成果是制定法律，[131] 大部分法律收录于《美国法典》（United States Code）。该法典按主题分为50个标题，以字母顺序排列，旨在“以简明实用的形式呈现法律”。[4]

3.3 国会任务

美国宪法规定国会具有立法、代表选民发言、监督、公众教育、调解冲突等不同任务，其中立法和代表权是最重要的两个任务。

3.3.1 立法任务

国会的主要职责是立法。在美国国内，国会是最高级的立法机构，制定影响每一个美国人的法律。立法经常需要在一些有争议的问题上作出决定，例如联邦预算、医疗保险改革、枪支控制，以及战争和和平。但是，国会并不发起它最终考虑的大部分提案。大部分提案来自于执行机构，而很多其他的来自政党和利益集团。通过一系列妥协和利益交换，以及大量的辩论和讨论，提案的拥护者尝试建立一个占据多数的联盟来制定国家政策。

3.3.2 代表任务

代表任务包含表达议员所在选区或者州的选民的意愿和需求，也包含并代表了更广范围内的国家利益，例如环境保护。因为选民意志经常和国家政策发生冲突，代表人物经常和影响国家的立法任务发生冲突。例如，虽然实行反倾销税可能对保护某些州内的产业有利，但是国家的出口可能会因为面临报复性反倾销税而受到损失。

考虑到对于国家利益的代表，以及党派和团体之间的政治交易，议员有时也会做出与所在选区或者州的选民意志相背的行为。例如，尽管联邦党在纽约州占据多数，但是马丁·范布伦在任职纽约州参议员期间，经常投票拥护民主共和党对英国的军事行动。但是，为了成功选举连任起见，议员也经常倾听选民的心声来决定自己的立场，以及在投票时反对其所在的政党和团体。严格而言，议员既不完全代表国家，也不完全代表所在选区或者州的选民，而是代表两者之间的混合体。

3.3.3 服务选民

议员及其雇员在面向选民的个案服务中，耗费大量时间。通过个案服务，议员帮助选民处理一些事务，例如和政府部门之间的纠纷、推广本地商业、解释特定提案的含义和对本地选民的影响等等。

3.3.4 监督任务

执行机构负责执行国会通过的法律。为了监视执行机构的施行，国会采取一系列行动来确保通过的法律得到执行。这是通过举行听证会和执行调查、改变某个机关的预算，以及对总统提名的执行机构和执法机构候选人进行审查来进行的。

3.3.5 公众教育任务

公众教育任务是国会举行公开听证会、执行监督政府的权力，或者在举行针对重要问题的公开辩论时执行的任务。通过执行这个任务，国会在影响到全国的问题上，给公众提供各方不同的意见。国会也决定是否以及何时举行听证会和辩论。这种日程控制也是公众教育任务的多面性之一。

3.3.6 调解任务

国会被认为是解决国内冲突的主要机构。代表各种种族、理念、性别、经济团体的利益集团向议员游说来表达不满和寻求帮助。这使得国会在通过法律的时候尽可能满足各种利益集团的要求，解决各方的冲突。在获得多数利益集团的支持的过程中，国会建立了民众对于国家的支持。

4. 组织结构 | Structure

Main article: Structure of the United States Congress【主条目：美国国会的组织结构】

Congress is split into two chambers – House and Senate – and manages the task of writing national legislation by dividing work into separate committees which specialize in different areas. Some members of Congress are elected by their peers to be officers of these committees. Further, Congress has ancillary organizations such as the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress to help provide it with information, and members of Congress have staff and offices to assist them as well. In addition, a vast industry of lobbyists helps members write legislation on behalf of diverse corporate and labor interests.
【参考译文】国会分为两个议院——众议院和参议院——并通过设立专门委员会来分工协作，完成国家立法任务。这些委员会各自专注于不同政策领域。部分国会议员由同僚选举担任各委员会的领导职务（如主席或高级成员）。此外，国会还设有辅助机构，例如政府问责署（Government Accountability Office）和国会图书馆（Library of Congress），为其提供信息支持。每位国会议员也配有个人办公室和工作人员协助其履职。同时，庞大的游说产业代表各类企业与劳工利益团体，协助议员起草法案。

4.1 两院制

主条目：美国参议院和美国众议院

美国国会由两院组成：参议院又称为上议院；众议院又称为下议院，两院之间并无从属关系。虽然参议院和众议院是同一个立法机构的两个部分，但是它们之间的区别也不少。

参议院和众议院最明显的差别，是它们的大小。众议院中有各州众议员435名，以及华盛顿特区、关岛、美属维尔京群岛、美属萨摩亚、波多黎各及北马里亚纳群岛的无投票权代表^{[波多黎各的代表任期4年；北马里亚纳群岛自2009年起拥有一席无投票权代表]}，而参议员来自50个州，每一州共2名，为数100名。这也使得众议院需要更多的法案来规范议员的辩论行为。

参议院通常允许针对所有问题进行无限制的演讲，但是也允许参议员通过投票来终止冗长辩论，一般来说要有60票（五分之三）多数同意，才能够终止冗长辩论及表决法案。

众议院有专门的法案委员会，对几乎每个提案的讨论都加以时间限制。这使得众议院在机构比参议院更加庞大的情况下，仍旧可以以比参议院更快的速度通过议案。

因为数目原因，加上参议院拥有的权力及重要性较众议院大，参议员通常比众议员具有更多的媒体曝光度，以及在政党内具有更高的地位，不少参议员在完成任期后加入内阁，甚至成为总统，而众议员则可能逐渐成为制定某个方面的政策的专家，例如财务、税务、环境或者教育政策等。

4.2 委员会 | Committees

Main article: United States congressional committee【主条目：美国国会委员会】

国会的大部分立法工作，由各种各样的委员会及下属委员会进行。一般议案提出后，都是先经专业委员会研究审核，再付诸表决。委员会的成员通常是处理提案方面的专家。国会立法的效率很大程度上取决于其效率。

由于国会指派委员会处理专门的议案，而委员会成员一般是相关事务的专家，国会甚少投票反对委员会的行为。委员会负责转交议案到下属委员会、针对议案举行的听证会日程以及决定是否将议案提供给全体议员来投票。

两院中有一些常设委员的委员会，处理一些诸如预算之类的长期问题。这些常任委员会的机构一般比其他委员会更为庞杂，而职位竞争更激烈，成员一般由两党的决策委员会指派。另外，两院也会针对专门的问题和议案成立特别委员会。尽管一些特别委员会可能是常设的，但是大部分特别委员会是临时的。另外，众议院有专门用来规范法规产生过程的法规委员会。

除了这样的院内委员会之外，面向国会整体的委员会，例如国会图书馆联合委员会这样的联合委员会和确定议案最终版本的会议委员会，由两院议员组成。

委员会负责人通常由多数党年资最深者担任，但是近年来有在委员会内民主选举的趋势。

4.2.1 专业化 | Specializations

The committee structure permits members of Congress to study a particular subject intensely. It is neither expected nor possible that a member be an expert on all subject areas before Congress.^[132] As time goes by, members develop expertise in particular subjects and their legal aspects. Committees investigate specialized subjects and advise the entire Congress about choices and trade-offs. The choice of specialty may be influenced by the member’s constituency, important regional issues, prior background and experience.^[133] Senators often choose a different specialty from that of the other senator from their state to prevent overlap.^[134] Some committees specialize in running the business of other committees and exert a powerful influence over all legislation; for example, the House Ways and Means Committee has considerable influence over House affairs.^[135]
【参考译文】委员会结构使国会议员能够深入研究某一特定议题。并不要求、也不可能要求议员在进入国会之前就成为所有议题领域的专家。[132] 随着时间推移，议员们会在特定议题及其法律层面发展出专业能力。委员会负责调查专门议题，并就各种选择与权衡向整个国会提供建议。议员选择专精领域时，可能会受到其选区利益、重要地区性议题以及个人先前背景和经验的影响。[133] 参议员通常会选择与其本州另一位参议员不同的专精领域，以避免重叠。[134] 有些委员会专门负责管理其他委员会的事务，并对所有立法施加强大影响；例如，众议院筹款委员会（House Ways and Means Committee）对众议院事务具有相当大的影响力。[135]

4.2.2 权力 | Power

Committees write legislation. While procedures, such as the House discharge petition process, can introduce bills to the House floor and effectively bypass committee input, they are exceedingly difficult to implement without committee action. Committees have power and have been called independent fiefdoms. Legislative, oversight, and internal administrative tasks are divided among about two hundred committees and subcommittees which gather information, evaluate alternatives, and identify problems.^[136] They propose solutions for consideration by the full chamber.^[136] In addition, they perform the function of oversight by monitoring the executive branch and investigating wrongdoing.^[136]
【参考译文】委员会负责起草立法。尽管存在某些程序（如众议院的“解除请愿”程序）可将法案直接提交至众议院全院审议，从而有效绕过委员会的意见，但若无委员会的行动，这些程序极难实施。委员会拥有实权，甚至被称为“独立的领地”。立法、监督以及内部行政任务被分配给大约二百个委员会和小组委员会，它们负责收集信息、评估备选方案并识别问题。[136] 它们向整个议院提出解决方案以供审议。[136] 此外，委员会还通过监督行政部门和调查不当行为来履行监督职能。[136]

4.2.3 官员 | Officer

At the start of each two-year session, the House elects a speaker who does not normally preside over debates but serves as the majority party’s leader. In the Senate, the vice president is the ex officio president of the Senate. In addition, the Senate elects an officer called the president pro tempore. Pro tempore means for the time being and this office is usually held by the most senior member of the Senate’s majority party and customarily keeps this position until there is a change in party control. Accordingly, the Senate does not necessarily elect a new president pro tempore at the beginning of a new Congress. In the House and Senate, the actual presiding officer is generally a junior member of the majority party who is appointed so that new members become acquainted with the rules of the chamber.
【参考译文】每届为期两年的国会会期开始时，众议院会选举一名议长（Speaker），该议长通常不主持辩论，而是作为多数党的领袖。在参议院，副总统是当然的参议院议长（ex officio president of the Senate）。此外，参议院还会选举一名临时议长（president pro tempore）。“Pro tempore”意为“暂时地”，这一职位通常由参议院多数党中最资深的议员担任，并依惯例一直保留该职位，直至政党控制权发生变更。因此，参议院不一定在每届新国会开始时都重新选举临时议长。在众议院和参议院中，实际主持议事的官员通常是由多数党指派的一名资浅议员，以便让新议员熟悉本院的议事规则。

4.2.4 常设委员会

众议院共有20个常设委员会，参议院共有16个常设委员会，每个常设委员会可再划分成一系列小组委员会，以进行更专业的工作。目前常设委员会正有职业化和资深化的趋势。

众议院常设委员会包括：农业、拨款、军事、预算、教育及劳工、能源及商业、纪律、金融、外交事务、国土安全、众院管理、司法、自然资源、政府运作、程序、科学太空及科技、小型企业、运输及公共建设、退伍军人事务、岁入委员会、全院委员会。

4.2.5 协商委员会

只有在两院通过的议案绝对一致的情况下，该议案才能成为法律。大部分时候，参众两院会互相妥协，以求达成一致。但是所有议案中，5%能够通过。通常情况下，重要的议案必须提交给协调委员会（conference committee）处理。协调委员会是解决两院议案版本分歧的特别委员会，在整个委员会中，共和党和民主党都有各自的代表，但是多数党所占比例会大一些。

4.2.6 联合委员会

联合委员会的成员来自参众两院，其职能是讨论整个国会感兴趣的问题，或是监督由国会资助的各种机构，如国会图书馆或美国政府印刷局。如经济联合委员会、印刷联合委员会、税收联合委员会、图书馆联合委员会等。

4.3 支持服务 | Support services

4.3.1 国会图书馆 | Library of Congress

Main article: Library of Congress【主条目：国会图书馆】

The Library of Congress was established by an act of Congress in 1800. It is primarily housed in three buildings on Capitol Hill, but also includes several other sites: the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in Washington, D.C.; the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia; a large book storage facility located in Fort Meade, Maryland; and multiple overseas offices. The Library had mostly law books when it was burnt by British forces in 1814 during the War of 1812, but the library’s collections were restored and expanded when Congress authorized the purchase of Thomas Jefferson‘s private library. One of the library’s missions is to serve Congress and its staff as well as the American public. It is the largest library in the world with nearly 150 million items including books, films, maps, photographs, music, manuscripts, graphics, and materials in 470 languages.^[137]
【参考译文】国会图书馆于1800年经国会法案设立。其主体馆舍位于国会山的三座建筑内，此外还包括若干其他设施：位于华盛顿特区的盲人及残障人士国家图书馆服务处（National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped）；位于弗吉尼亚州卡尔佩珀（Culpeper）的国家音像保护中心（National Audio-Visual Conservation Center）；位于马里兰州米德堡（Fort Meade）的一座大型图书储存设施；以及多个海外办事处。1814年，在1812年战争期间，英军焚毁国会图书馆时，馆藏以法律书籍为主；此后，国会授权购买托马斯·杰斐逊的私人藏书，使馆藏得以恢复并大幅扩充。该馆的使命之一是为国会及其工作人员以及美国公众提供服务。它是全球规模最大的图书馆，馆藏近1.5亿件，包括图书、影片、地图、照片、乐谱、手稿、图像资料，涵盖470种语言。[137]

4.3.2 国会研究服务处 | Congressional Research Service

Main article: Congressional Research Service【主条目：国会研究服务处】

The Congressional Research Service, part of the Library of Congress, provides detailed, up-to-date and non-partisan research for senators, representatives, and their staff to help them carry out their official duties. It provides ideas for legislation, helps members analyze a bill, facilitates public hearings, makes reports, consults on matters such as parliamentary procedure, and helps the two chambers resolve disagreements. It has been called the “House’s think tank” and has a staff of about 900 employees.^[138]
【参考译文】国会研究服务处（Congressional Research Service, CRS）隶属于国会图书馆，为参议员、众议员及其工作人员提供详尽、最新且无党派倾向的研究支持，以协助他们履行官方职责。其服务内容包括：为立法提供构想，协助议员分析法案，促进公开听证会的举行，撰写报告，在议事规则等问题上提供咨询，并协助两院解决分歧。该机构曾被称为“众议院的智库”，拥有约900名员工。[138]

4.3.3 国会预算办公室 | Congressional Budget Office

Main article: Congressional Budget Office【主条目：国会预算办公室】

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency which provides economic data to Congress.^[139]
【参考译文】国会预算办公室（Congressional Budget Office, CBO）是一个联邦机构，负责向国会提供经济数据。[139]

It was created as an independent non-partisan agency by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. It helps Congress estimate revenue inflows from taxes and helps the budgeting process. It makes projections about such matters as the national debt^[140] as well as likely costs of legislation. It prepares an annual Economic and Budget Outlook with a mid-year update and writes An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for the Senate’s Appropriations Committee. The speaker of the House and the Senate’s president pro tempore jointly appoint the CBO director for a four-year term.
【参考译文】它根据1974年《国会预算与扣押控制法》（Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974）设立，是一个独立且无党派的机构。CBO协助国会估算税收收入，并支持预算编制过程。它就国家债务[140]、立法可能产生的成本等事项进行预测。该办公室每年发布《经济与预算展望》（Economic and Budget Outlook），并在年中更新一次；同时，还为参议院拨款委员会撰写《总统预算提案分析报告》（An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals）。CBO主任由众议院议长与众议院临时议长（即参议院临时议长）共同任命，任期四年。

4.3.4 游说 | Lobbying

Main article: Lobbying in the United States【主条目：美国的游说活动】

Lobbyists represent diverse interests and often seek to influence congressional decisions to reflect their clients’ needs. Lobby groups and their members sometimes write legislation and whip bills. In 2007, there were approximately 17,000 federal lobbyists in Washington, D.C.^[141] They explain to legislators the goals of their organizations. Some lobbyists represent non-profit organizations and work pro bono for issues in which they are personally interested.
【参考译文】游说者代表各种不同利益群体，常常试图影响国会决策，使其反映委托人的需求。游说团体及其成员有时会参与起草法案或推动法案通过。2007年，华盛顿特区约有17,000名联邦注册游说者。[141] 他们向立法者解释其组织的目标。部分游说者代表非营利组织，无偿为其个人关心的议题进行倡导。

4.3.5 警察 | Police

Main article: United States Capitol Police【主条目：美国国会警察】

4.4 党派之争与两党合作 | Partisanship versus bipartisanship

Congress has alternated between periods of constructive cooperation and compromise between parties, known as bipartisanship, and periods of deep political polarization and fierce infighting, known as partisanship. The period after the Civil War was marked by partisanship, as is the case today. It is generally easier for committees to reach accord on issues when compromise is possible. Some political scientists speculate that a prolonged period marked by narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress has intensified partisanship in the last few decades, but that an alternation of control of Congress between Democrats and Republicans may lead to greater flexibility in policies, as well as pragmatism and civility within the institution.^[142]
【参考译文】国会历史上在两种状态之间交替：一种是两党之间富有建设性的合作与妥协，即“两党合作”（bipartisanship）；另一种则是深度的政治极化与激烈内斗，即“党派之争”（partisanship）。内战后的时期以党派之争为特征，当今亦是如此。当妥协成为可能时，委员会通常更容易就议题达成共识。一些政治学家推测，在过去几十年中，国会两院长期由微弱多数主导，加剧了党派对立；但民主党与共和党对国会控制权的轮替，可能会促使政策更具灵活性，并在机构内部带来更多的务实精神与文明礼仪。[142]

5. 程序 | Procedures

Main article: Procedures of the United States Congress / 参见：美国国会程序

5.1 会期 | Sessions

A term of Congress is divided into two “sessions“, one for each year; Congress has occasionally been called into an extra or special session. A new session commences on January 3 each year unless Congress decides differently. The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year and forbids either house from meeting outside the Capitol without the consent of the other house.
【参考译文】一届国会任期分为两个“会期”（sessions），每年一个；国会偶尔也会被召集举行额外或特别会期。除非国会另行决定，新会期通常于每年1月3日开始。《宪法》要求国会每年至少召开一次会议，并禁止任何一院在未经另一院同意的情况下在国会大厦以外地点开会。

5.2 联席会议 | Joint sessions

Main article: Joint session of the United States Congress【主条目：美国国会联席会议】

Joint sessions of the United States Congress occur on special occasions that require a concurrent resolution from House and Senate. These sessions include counting electoral votes after a presidential election and the president’s State of the Union address. The constitutionally mandated report, normally given as an annual speech, is modeled on Britain’s Speech from the Throne, was written by most presidents after Jefferson but personally delivered as a spoken oration beginning with Wilson in 1913. Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings are traditionally presided over by the speaker of the House, except when counting presidential electoral votes when the vice president (acting as the president of the Senate) presides.
【参考译文】美国国会的联席会议（Joint Sessions）在特殊场合举行，需经众议院和参议院共同通过一项联合决议案方可召开。此类会议包括总统大选后的选举人票计票，以及总统发表国情咨文（State of the Union Address）。这项宪法规定的报告通常以年度演讲形式进行，其形式仿效英国的“御座致辞”（Speech from the Throne）。自托马斯·杰斐逊之后，大多数总统亲自撰写该报告，但从1913年伍德罗·威尔逊（Wilson）开始，总统才恢复以口头演讲形式亲自发表。传统上，联席会议和联席集会（Joint Meetings）由众议院议长主持，唯独在清点总统选举人票时，由副总统（作为参议院议长）主持。

5.3 法案与决议案 | Bills and resolutions

See also: Act of Congress and List of United States federal legislation
【另见：美国国会法案、美国联邦立法列表】

Ideas for legislation can come from members, lobbyists, state legislatures, constituents, legislative counsel, or executive agencies. Anyone can write a bill, but only members of Congress may introduce bills. Most bills are not written by Congress members, but originate from the Executive branch; interest groups often draft bills as well. The usual next step is for the proposal to be passed to a committee for review.^[4] A proposal is usually in one of these forms:
【参考译文】立法构想可来自议员、游说人士、州议会、选民、立法顾问或行政部门。任何人都可以起草法案，但只有国会议员才有权正式提出法案。大多数法案并非由议员亲自撰写，而是源自行政部门；利益集团也经常代为起草法案。通常下一步是将提案提交委员会审议。[4] 提案一般采取以下几种形式之一：

• Bills are laws in the making. A House-originated bill begins with the letters “H.R.” for “House of Representatives”, followed by a number kept as it progresses.^[131]
  【参考译文】法案（Bills）：处于立法过程中的法律草案。由众议院提出的法案以“H.R.”（House of Representatives 的缩写）开头，后接编号，并在后续流程中保持该编号不变。[131]
• Joint resolutions. There is little difference between a bill and a joint resolution since both are treated similarly; a joint resolution originating from the House, for example, begins “H.J.Res.” followed by its number.^[131]
  【参考译文】联合决议案（Joint Resolutions）：与法案差别不大，处理方式基本相同；例如，由众议院提出的联合决议案以“H.J.Res.”开头，后接编号。[131]
• Concurrent Resolutions affect only the House and Senate and accordingly are not presented to the president. In the House, they begin with “H.Con.Res.”^[131]
  【参考译文】共同决议案（Concurrent Resolutions）：仅适用于众议院和参议院内部事务，因此不会提交总统签署。在众议院，此类决议案以“H.Con.Res.”开头。[131]
• Simple resolutions concern only the House or only the Senate and begin with “H.Res.” or “S.Res.”^[131]
  【参考译文】简单决议案（Simple Resolutions）：仅涉及众议院或参议院单方面事务，分别以“H.Res.”或“S.Res.”开头。[131]

Representatives introduce a bill while the House is in session by placing it in the hopper on the Clerk’s desk.^[131] It is assigned a number and referred to a committee which studies each bill intensely at this stage.^[131] Drafting statutes requires “great skill, knowledge, and experience” and sometimes take a year or more.^[4] Sometimes lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Joint resolutions are the normal way to propose a constitutional amendment or declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law but express the opinion of Congress or regulate procedure. Bills may be introduced by any member of either house. The Constitution states: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” While the Senate cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, it has the power to amend or reject them. Congress has sought ways to establish appropriate spending levels.^[4]
【参考译文】议员在众议院开会期间，通过将法案投入设在书记官桌上的“议案箱”（hopper）来正式提出法案。[131] 法案随即被分配一个编号并转交至相关委员会，委员会在此阶段对每项法案进行深入研究。[131] 起草法律条文需要“高超的技巧、知识和经验”，有时耗时一年以上。[4] 有时游说者会起草法案并提交给议员代为提出。联合决议案通常是提出宪法修正案或宣战的常规方式。而共同决议案（需两院通过）和简单决议案（仅一院通过）虽无法律效力，但可表达国会立场或规范议事程序。任何一院的议员均可提出法案。《宪法》规定：“所有征税法案应由众议院发起。”虽然参议院不能发起税收和拨款法案，但有权对其进行修改或否决。国会一直在探索确立适当支出水平的方法。[4]

Each chamber determines its own internal rules of operation unless specified in the Constitution or prescribed by law. In the House, a Rules Committee guides legislation; in the Senate, a Standing Rules committee is in charge. Each branch has its own traditions; for example, the Senate relies heavily on the practice of getting “unanimous consent” for noncontroversial matters.^[4] House and Senate rules can be complex, sometimes requiring a hundred specific steps before a bill can become a law.^[5] Members sometimes turn to outside experts to learn about proper congressional procedures.^[143]
【参考译文】除非《宪法》另有规定或法律明确要求，各院自行制定其内部议事规则。众议院设有“规则委员会”（Rules Committee）指导立法流程；参议院则由“常设规则委员会”（Standing Rules Committee）负责。两院各有传统：例如，参议院在处理非争议事项时高度依赖“一致同意”（unanimous consent）的做法。[4] 众参两院的规则可能极为复杂，有时一项法案成为法律前需经历上百个具体步骤。[5] 议员有时会求助外部专家，以了解正确的国会程序。[143]

Each bill goes through several stages in each house including consideration by a committee and advice from the Government Accountability Office.^[4] Most legislation is considered by standing committees which have jurisdiction over a particular subject such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. Standing committees meet at least once each month.^[4] Almost all standing committee meetings for transacting business must be open to the public unless the committee votes, publicly, to close the meeting.^[4] A committee might call for public hearings on important bills.^[4] Each committee is led by a chair who belongs to the majority party and a ranking member of the minority party. Witnesses and experts can present their case for or against a bill.^[131] Then, a bill may go to what is called a mark-up session, where committee members debate the bill’s merits and may offer amendments or revisions.^[131]
【参考译文】每项法案在两院均需经历若干阶段，包括委员会审议以及政府问责署（Government Accountability Office）的意见征询。[4] 大多数立法由常设委员会（standing committees）审议，这些委员会对特定领域（如农业或拨款）拥有管辖权。众议院设有20个常设委员会，参议院有16个。常设委员会每月至少召开一次会议。[4] 除委员会公开投票决定闭门外，几乎所有处理事务的常设委员会会议都必须向公众开放。[4] 委员会可就重要法案举行公开听证会。[4] 每个委员会由一名属于多数党的主席和一名少数党的资深委员（ranking member）领导。证人和专家可就法案发表支持或反对意见。[131]

Committees may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After debate, the committee votes whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house. If a bill is tabled then it is rejected. If amendments are extensive, sometimes a new bill with amendments built in will be submitted as a so-called clean bill with a new number.^[131] Both houses have procedures under which committees can be bypassed or overruled but they are rarely used. Generally, members who have been in Congress longer have greater seniority and therefore greater power.^[144]
【参考译文】随后，法案可能进入所谓“修订审议”（mark-up session）阶段，委员会成员在此辩论法案优劣，并可提出修正案或修改意见。[131] 委员会也可直接修改法案，但全院大会保留接受或拒绝委员会修正案的最终权力。辩论结束后，委员会投票决定是否将法案提交全院审议。若法案被搁置（tabled），即视为被否决。若修正幅度较大，有时会以包含全部修正内容的新法案形式重新提交，称为“干净法案”（clean bill），并赋予新编号。[131] 两院均有绕过或推翻委员会决定的程序，但极少使用。通常，资历较深的议员拥有更高“资历”（seniority），因而权力更大。[144]

A bill which reaches the floor of the full house can be simple or complex^[131] and begins with an enacting formula such as “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled …” Consideration of a bill requires, itself, a rule which is a simple resolution specifying the particulars of debate – time limits, possibility of further amendments, and such.^[131] Each side has equal time and members can yield to other members who wish to speak.^[131] Sometimes opponents seek to recommit a bill which means to change part of it.^[131] Generally, discussion requires a quorum, usually half of the total number of representatives, before discussion can begin, although there are exceptions.^[145] The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House and Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.
【参考译文】一旦法案进入全院大会审议阶段，其内容可能简单也可能复杂，[131] 并以诸如“兹由美利坚合众国国会之参议院与众议院制定如下……”之类的立法公式开头。对法案的审议本身还需一项“审议规则”（rule），即一项简单决议案，明确辩论细节——如时间限制、是否允许进一步修正等。[131] 双方发言时间相等，议员可将发言时间让予希望发言的其他议员。[131] 有时反对者会试图“重新提交”（recommit）法案，即要求修改部分内容。[131] 通常，开始辩论需达到法定人数（quorum），即代表总数的一半，尽管存在例外情况。[145] 全院可对法案进行辩论和修改；众参两院的具体程序有所不同。最终将对法案进行表决。

Once a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other which may pass, reject, or amend it. For the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill.^[131] If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes senators and representatives^[131] sometimes by using a reconciliation process to limit budget bills.^[4] Both houses use a budget enforcement mechanism informally known as pay-as-you-go or paygo which discourages members from considering acts that increase budget deficits.^[4] If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes, otherwise it fails.
【参考译文】一项法案经一院通过后，将送交另一院，后者可予以通过、否决或修改。法案要成为法律，两院必须就完全相同的文本达成一致。[131] 若第二院对法案作出修改，则需通过“协商委员会”（conference committee）——一个由参议员和众议员组成的临时委员会——协调两院版本差异；[131] 有时也会采用“预算协调程序”（reconciliation process）来限制预算类法案的修改范围。[4] 两院均采用一种非正式称为“现收现付”（pay-as-you-go 或 paygo）的预算执行机制，以抑制议员提出增加财政赤字的法案。[4] 若两院均同意协商委员会提交的版本，法案即获通过；否则失败。

The Constitution specifies that a majority of members (a quorum) be present before doing business in each house. The rules of each house assume that a quorum is present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary and debate often continues despite the lack of a majority.
【参考译文】《宪法》规定，每院开展议事须有法定人数（即过半数议员）出席。但各院规则默认法定人数已满足，除非有议员提出“法定人数点名”（quorum call）证明相反情况；即便实际未达法定人数，辩论也常常继续进行。

Voting within Congress can take many forms, including systems using lights and bells and electronic voting.^[4] Both houses use voice voting to decide most matters in which members shout “aye” or “no” and the presiding officer announces the result. The Constitution requires a recorded vote if demanded by one-fifth of the members present or when voting to override a presidential veto. If the voice vote is unclear or if the matter is controversial, a recorded vote usually happens. The Senate uses roll-call voting, in which a clerk calls out the names of all the senators, each senator stating “aye” or “no” when their name is announced. In the Senate, the Vice President may cast the tie-breaking vote if present when the senators are equally divided.
【参考译文】国会表决形式多样，包括使用灯光与铃声系统及电子投票。[4] 两院对大多数事项采用口头表决（voice voting）：议员高呼“赞成”（aye）或“反对”（no），由主持官员宣布结果。《宪法》规定，若出席议员中有五分之一要求，或在推翻总统否决时，必须进行记名投票。若口头表决结果不明确或议题具争议性，通常会进行记名投票。参议院采用点名表决（roll-call voting）：书记员逐一念出所有参议员姓名，每位参议员在名字被叫到时回答“赞成”或“反对”。若参议员票数持平且副总统在场，副总统可投下打破僵局的一票。

The House reserves roll-call votes for the most formal matters, as a roll call of all 435 representatives takes quite some time; normally, members vote by using an electronic device. In the case of a tie, the motion in question fails. Most votes in the House are done electronically, allowing members to vote yea or nay or present or open.^[4] Members insert a voting ID card and can change their votes during the last five minutes if they choose; in addition, paper ballots are used occasionally (yea indicated by green and nay by red).^[4] One member cannot cast a proxy vote for another.^[4] Congressional votes are recorded on an online database.^[146][147]
【参考译文】众议院仅对最重要事项使用点名表决，因为对全部435名议员逐一唱名耗时甚长；通常议员使用电子设备投票。若出现平票，所议动议即告失败。众议院大多数表决通过电子方式进行，议员可选择投“赞成”（yea）、“反对”（nay）、“出席”（present）或“弃权”（open）。[4] 议员插入投票ID卡后，在最后五分钟内仍可更改投票；此外，偶尔也使用纸质选票（绿色表示赞成，红色表示反对）。[4] 任何议员不得代他人投票（即不允许代理投票）。[4] 国会所有表决记录均存入在线数据库。[146][147]

After passage by both houses, a bill is enrolled and sent to the president for approval.^[131] The president may sign it making it law or veto it, perhaps returning it to Congress with the president’s objections. A vetoed bill can still become law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the president may do nothing neither signing nor vetoing the bill and then the bill becomes law automatically after ten days (not counting Sundays) according to the Constitution. But if Congress is adjourned during this period, presidents may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.
【参考译文】法案经两院通过后，将被整理成正式文本（enrolled bill）并送交总统批准。[131] 总统可签署使其成为法律，也可予以否决，并可能附上反对意见退回国会。被否决的法案仍可通过两院各自以三分之二多数再次通过而成为法律。最后，总统也可既不签署也不否决法案；根据《宪法》，若十日内（不含星期日）国会仍在会期，法案将自动生效。但如果在此期间国会已休会，总统只需不予理会即可阻止法案生效，这种做法称为“口袋否决”（pocket veto），休会中的国会无法推翻该否决。

5.4 预算的产生

美国宪法规定，国会有权征税，而所有税务和拨款的动议必须由众议院提出，在这两项事项上参议院只有修正权。国会也要求总统准备和提交年度财政预算。财政年度，亦即年度财政预算的开始日为每年10月。从年度财政预算的开始日前18个月起算，美国管理与预算局负责审核各部门提出的预算，并且准备总统在年度财政预算的开始日前9个月提交到国会的年度预算。国会应该在年度财政预算的开始日之前批准该预算，但是经常预算的批准日期会超出年度财政预算的开始日。这时候国会需要通过临时法律，使得政府可以在预算通过之前正常运行。

6. 公众互动 | Public interaction

Main article: U.S. Congress and citizens【主条目：美国国会与公民】

6.1 在任优势 | Advantage of incumbency

6.1.1 公民与议员 | Citizens and representatives

Senators face reelection every six years, and representatives every two. Reelections encourage candidates to focus their publicity efforts at their home states or districts.^[63] Running for reelection can be a grueling process of distant travel and fund-raising which distracts senators and representatives from paying attention to governing, according to some critics.^[148] Although others respond that the process is necessary to keep members of Congress in touch with voters.
【参考译文】参议员每六年面临一次连任选举，众议员则每两年一次。连任竞选促使候选人将宣传重点放在自己的州或选区。[63] 一些批评者指出，竞选连任是一个耗费精力的过程，涉及长途奔波和筹款，会分散议员对治理事务的注意力。[148] 但也有观点认为，这一过程有助于确保国会议员与选民保持联系。

Incumbent members of Congress running for reelection have strong advantages over challengers.^[52] They raise more money^[57] because donors fund incumbents over challengers, perceiving the former as more likely to win,^[55][149] and donations are vital for winning elections.^[150] One critic compared election to Congress to receiving life tenure at a university.^[149] Another advantage for representatives is the practice of gerrymandering.^[151][152] After each ten-year census, states are allocated representatives based on population, and officials in power can choose how to draw the congressional district boundaries to support candidates from their party. As a result, reelection rates of members of Congress hover around 90 percent,^[9] causing some critics to call them a privileged class.^[8] Academics such as Princeton’s Stephen Macedo have proposed solutions to fix gerrymandering in the U.S. Senators and representatives enjoy free mailing privileges, called franking privileges; while these are not intended for electioneering, this rule is often skirted by borderline election-related mailings during campaigns.
【参考译文】寻求连任的现任国会议员相比挑战者具有显著优势。[52] 他们能筹集更多资金，[57] 因为捐助者更倾向于资助现任议员而非挑战者，认为前者胜选可能性更大；[55][149] 而捐款对赢得选举至关重要。[150] 有批评者甚至将当选国会议员比作获得大学终身教职。[149] 众议员还享有另一项优势——“选区重划”（gerrymandering）。[151][152] 每十年一次的人口普查后，各州根据人口重新分配众议院席位，掌权官员可借此划定有利于本党候选人的选区边界。结果，国会议员的连任率长期维持在约90%左右，[9] 一些批评者因此称他们为“特权阶层”。[8] 普林斯顿大学学者斯蒂芬·马其多（Stephen Macedo）等学者已提出改革方案，以解决美国的选区操纵问题。此外，参议员和众议员享有免费邮寄特权（称为“邮资特权”，franking privileges）；尽管该特权本不应用于竞选活动，但在实际操作中，议员常在竞选期间发送游走于规则边缘、带有选举色彩的邮件。

6.1.2 昂贵的竞选活动 | Expensive campaigns

In 1971, the cost of running for Congress in Utah was $70,000^[153] but costs have climbed.^[154] The biggest expense is television advertisements.^{[56][149][153][155][156]} Today’s races cost more than a million dollars for a House seat, and six million or more for a Senate seat.^{[8][56][155][157][158]} Since fundraising is vital, “members of Congress are forced to spend ever-increasing hours raising money for their re-election.”^{[attribution needed][159]}
【参考译文】1971年，在犹他州竞选国会议员的费用约为7万美元，[153] 此后成本不断攀升。[154] 最大的开支是电视广告。[56][149][153][155][156] 如今，竞选一个众议院席位通常需花费超过100万美元，而参议院席位则需600万美元甚至更多。[8][56][155][157][158] 由于筹款至关重要，“国会议员被迫投入越来越多的时间为连任募集资金。”[需要引证][159]

The Supreme Court has treated campaign contributions as a free speech issue.^[154] Some see money as a good influence in politics since it “enables candidates to communicate with voters”.^[154] Few members retire from Congress without complaining about how much it costs to campaign for reelection.^[8] Critics contend that members of Congress are more likely to attend to the needs of heavy campaign contributors than to ordinary citizens.^[8]
【参考译文】美国最高法院将政治捐款视为言论自由问题。[154] 有人认为金钱对政治有积极影响，因为“它使候选人能够与选民沟通”。[154] 很少有议员在退休时不抱怨连任竞选的巨大开销。[8] 批评者则指出，国会议员更可能优先回应大额捐助者的需求，而非普通公民的利益。[8]

Elections are influenced by many variables. Some political scientists speculate there is a coattail effect (when a popular president or party position has the effect of reelecting incumbents who win by “riding on the president’s coattails”), although there is some evidence that the coattail effect is irregular and possibly declining since the 1950s.^[52] Some districts are so heavily Democratic or Republican that they are called a safe seat; any candidate winning the primary will almost always be elected, and these candidates do not need to spend money on advertising.^[160][161] But some races can be competitive when there is no incumbent. If a seat becomes vacant in an open district, then both parties may spend heavily on advertising in these races; in California in 1992, only four of twenty races for House seats were considered highly competitive.^[162]
【参考译文】选举受多种因素影响。一些政治学家推测存在“裙带效应”（coattail effect），即受欢迎的总统或政党立场有助于现任议员“搭便车”连任。然而有证据表明，自1950年代以来，这种效应并不稳定，且可能正在减弱。[52] 某些选区民主党或共和党优势极为明显，被称为“安全席位”（safe seat）；只要赢得党内初选，候选人几乎必然当选，因此无需在广告上投入大量资金。[160][161] 但若某席位无现任议员（即“开放席位”），竞争可能非常激烈。例如，当某个开放选区出现空缺时，两党都可能在该选区大举投放广告；1992年加利福尼亚州的20个众议院席位竞选中，仅有4个被视为高度竞争性选区。[162]

6.1.3 电视与负面广告 | Television and negative advertising

Since members of Congress must advertise heavily on television, this usually involves negative advertising, which smears an opponent’s character without focusing on the issues.^[163] Negative advertising is seen as effective because “the messages tend to stick.”^[164] These advertisements sour the public on the political process in general as most members of Congress seek to avoid blame.^[165] One wrong decision or one damaging television image can mean defeat at the next election, which leads to a culture of risk avoidance, a need to make policy decisions behind closed doors,^[165][166] and concentrating publicity efforts in the members’ home districts.^[63]
【参考译文】由于国会议员必须在电视上大量投放广告，这通常意味着使用负面广告——即通过抹黑对手人格而非聚焦政策议题来攻击对方。[163] 负面广告被认为有效，是因为“这类信息更容易被记住”。[164] 然而，这类广告也让公众对整个政治过程产生反感，因为大多数议员都试图规避责任。[165] 一次错误决策或一段损害形象的电视画面就可能导致下次选举落败，这催生了一种规避风险的文化：政策决定常在闭门会议中做出，[165][166] 宣传活动也集中于议员各自的家乡选区。[63]

6.1.4 公众认知 | Perceptions

Prominent Founding Fathers, writing in The Federalist Papers, felt that elections were essential to liberty, that a bond between the people and the representatives was particularly essential,^[167] and that “frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”^[167]
【参考译文】美国建国先贤在《联邦党人文集》中强调，选举对自由至关重要，人民与其代表之间的纽带尤为关键，[167] 并指出：“频繁的选举无疑是确保这种依赖与共鸣得以有效维系的唯一途径。”[167]

In 2009, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress.^{[168][169][170]} The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since, although there was a slight upward trend in the 2008 election.^[171] Public opinion polls asking people if they approve of the job Congress is doing have, in the last few decades, hovered around 25% with some variation.^{[8][172][173][174][175][176][177]}
【参考译文】然而到了2009年，很少有美国人熟悉国会领导人。[168][169][170] 实际投票的合格选民比例在1960年为63%，此后持续下降，尽管2008年大选出现小幅回升。[171] 过去几十年来，民意调查显示，公众对国会工作表现的“认可度”一直徘徊在25%左右，虽有波动但总体低迷。[8][172][173][174][175][176][177]

Scholar Julian Zeliger suggested that the “size, messiness, virtues, and vices that make Congress so interesting also create enormous barriers to our understanding the institution … Unlike the presidency, Congress is difficult to conceptualize.”^[178] Other scholars suggest that despite the criticism, “Congress is a remarkably resilient institution … its place in the political process is not threatened … it is rich in resources” and that most members behave ethically.^[6] They contend that “Congress is easy to dislike and often difficult to defend” and this perception is exacerbated because many challengers running for Congress run against Congress, which is an “old form of American politics” that further undermines Congress’s reputation with the public:^[8]
【参考译文】学者朱利安·泽利格（Julian Zeliger）指出：“国会的规模、混乱、美德与缺陷使其极具吸引力，但也构成了我们理解这一机构的巨大障碍……与总统职位不同，国会难以被清晰地概念化。”[178] 其他学者则认为，尽管饱受批评，“国会仍是一个非凡坚韧的机构……其在政治进程中的地位并未受到威胁……它拥有丰富的资源”，而且大多数议员行为合乎道德。[6] 他们指出：“国会容易招致反感，却往往难以辩护。”这种负面印象因许多竞选国会议员的挑战者以“反对国会”为竞选口号而进一步加剧——这是一种“美国政治的古老传统”，反而进一步损害了国会在公众心目中的声誉：[8]

The rough-and-tumble world of legislating is not orderly and civil, human frailties too often taint its membership, and legislative outcomes are often frustrating and ineffective … Still, we are not exaggerating when we say that Congress is essential to American democracy. We would not have survived as a nation without a Congress that represented the diverse interests of our society, conducted a public debate on the major issues, found compromises to resolve conflicts peacefully, and limited the power of our executive, military, and judicial institutions … The popularity of Congress ebbs and flows with the public’s confidence in government generally … the legislative process is easy to dislike – it often generates political posturing and grandstanding, it necessarily involves compromise, and it often leaves broken promises in its trail. Also, members of Congress often appear self-serving as they pursue their political careers and represent interests and reflect values that are controversial. Scandals, even when they involve a single member, add to the public’s frustration with Congress and have contributed to the institution’s low ratings in opinion polls.

— Smith, Roberts & Wielen^[8]

“立法世界的纷争混乱并非井然有序或彬彬有礼；人性的弱点常常玷污其成员；立法成果往往令人沮丧且效率低下……尽管如此，我们说‘国会对美国民主至关重要’并非言过其实。若没有一个能够代表社会多元利益、就重大议题展开公开辩论、通过妥协和平解决冲突，并有效制约行政、军事和司法权力的国会，我们的国家不可能存续至今……公众对国会的支持度随其对政府整体信心的起伏而波动……立法过程本身就容易招致不满——它常伴随政治作秀与哗众取宠，必然涉及妥协，也常常留下未能兑现的承诺。此外，国会议员在追求政治生涯、代表特定利益并反映有争议的价值观时，常显得自私自利。即使丑闻仅涉及个别议员，也会加剧公众对国会的失望，并导致其在民意调查中的支持率长期低迷。”
——史密斯、罗伯茨与维伦（Smith, Roberts & Wielen）[8]

An additional factor that confounds public perceptions of Congress is that congressional issues are becoming more technical and complex and require expertise in subjects such as science, engineering and economics.^[8] As a result, Congress often cedes authority to experts at the executive branch.^[8]
【参考译文】另一个令公众对国会认知更加复杂化的因素是：国会处理的议题日益技术化和专业化，需要科学、工程和经济学等领域的专业知识。[8] 因此，国会经常将部分职权让渡给行政部门的专家。[8]

Since 2006, Congress has dropped ten points in the Gallup confidence poll with only nine percent having “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in their legislators.^[179] Since 2011, Gallup poll has reported Congress’s approval rating among Americans at 10% or below three times.^[69][70] Public opinion of Congress plummeted further to 5% in October 2013 after parts of the U.S. government deemed ‘nonessential government’ shut down.^[71]
【参考译文】自2006年以来，盖洛普（Gallup）民调显示，公众对国会的信心下降了10个百分点，仅有9%的受访者表示对国会议员“非常”或“相当”有信心。[179] 自2011年起，盖洛普三次报告称美国人对国会的满意度降至10%或更低。[69][70] 2013年10月，在美国政府部分“非必要部门”停摆之后，公众对国会的支持率更是暴跌至5%。[71]

6.2 小州与大州 | Smaller states and bigger states

When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the ratio of the populations of large states to small states was roughly twelve to one. The Connecticut Compromise gave every state, large and small, an equal vote in the Senate.^[180] Since each state has two senators, residents of smaller states have more clout in the Senate than residents of larger states. But since 1787, the population disparity between large and small states has grown; in 2006, for example, California had seventy times the population of Wyoming.^[181] Critics, such as constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson, have suggested that the population disparity works against residents of large states and causes a steady redistribution of resources from “large states to small states”.^{[182][183][184]} Others argue that the Connecticut Compromise was deliberately intended by the Founding Fathers to construct the Senate so that each state had equal footing not based on population,^[180] and contend that the result works well on balance.
【参考译文】1787年宪法获得批准时，大州与小州之间的人口比例大约为十二比一。康涅狄格妥协案赋予每个州——无论大小——在参议院中拥有平等的投票权。[180]由于每个州都有两名参议员，这使得小州居民在参议院中的影响力大于大州居民。然而自1787年以来，大州和小州之间的人口差异逐渐扩大；例如，在2006年，加利福尼亚州的人口是怀俄明州的七十倍。[181]一些批评者，如宪法学者桑福德·莱文森（Sanford Levinson），认为人口差异对大州居民不利，并导致了资源从“大州向小州”的持续再分配。[182][183][184]另一些人则认为，康涅狄格妥协案是建国先父们有意为之，旨在构建一个不基于人口数量而给予各州平等地位的参议院结构，并且认为这种安排总体上运行良好。

6.3 议员及其选民 | Members and constituents

A major role for members of Congress is providing services to constituents.^[185] Constituents request assistance with problems.^[186] Providing services helps members of Congress win votes and elections^{[151][187][188]} and can make a difference in close races.^[189] Congressional staff can help citizens navigate government bureaucracies.^[5] One academic described the complex intertwined relation between lawmakers and constituents as home style.^[190]: 8
【参考译文】国会议员的一项主要职责是为其选民提供服务。[185]选民请求帮助解决问题。[186]提供服务有助于国会议员赢得选票和选举[151][187][188]，并且在势均力敌的竞选中可能起到决定性作用。[189]国会工作人员可以帮助公民处理政府官僚机构的相关事务。[5]一位学者将立法者与选民之间复杂交织的关系描述为“家庭风格”。[190]: 8

参议院由各州自行选举，每州不论大小各选出两名任期六年的参议员，每两年有三分之一的参议院改选，但是选举过程受到美国宪法和联邦法律约束（美国宪法第一条第四款）。1913年美国宪法第十七条修正案通过之后，各州的两个参议员不再是由各州议会选出，而是由各州普选直接选出。

宪法规定每两年各州需要举行一次众议员选举，而每州的众议员数目和每个众议员的选区由每十年经过人口普查得到的数据决定（对于不足一个选区人口的小州，则规定由一位众议员代表）。

除了各州之外，其他美国地区，例如华盛顿特区、关岛、美属维尔京群岛、美属萨摩亚和波多黎各，也选举它们的国会代表。这些代表不参与投票，但是可以参与其他活动，例如调查和辩论^{[注 7]}。

6.3.1 选举候选人

参议员的资格是在就职时，必须年满30周岁，具有美国国籍必须超过9年，选举时必须是选举州的居民。众议员在就职时必须年满25周岁，具有美国国籍必须超过7年，而选举时必须是选举州的居民, 并不必须居住在本选区。

有党派的国会候选人通常需要通过一次党内初选，决定该政党在普选中提名的候选人。由于党派在美国选举中的统治地位，大部分候选人都需要经过这一程序。在初选中，候选人可能在某些问题上采取激进态度，以吸引当地的党内选票，但是在普选中，候选人可能采取中间派的态度，以吸引中间派的选票。

6.3.2 燕尾效应

参见：杰利蝾螈

大部分现任国会议员都能在下一届选举中取得胜利。这归因与他们作为议员享有的权利和义务，例如调查选民和媒体报道等等。作为党派的一员，他们也会在竞选中帮助同一党派的候选人，使其所在党保持或者增强对选区的控制，这被称为燕尾效应。但是，选民也会根据总统的政绩，在期中选举决定投票目标。

由于每个众议员的选区是由根据人口密度划分的，所以在议会中占据多数地位的政党，会在每十年基于人口普查数据，重新划分选区的过程中，加强自身的地位。有时，重新划分选区的结果使得各区选民人口差别很大，或者种族差异很大。在1962年，最高法院引用了平等保护条款，开始禁止了这类行为。

尽管最高法院保护每人一票的权利，但是政党仍旧尝试透过重新划分选区来加强自身的优势，例如在电脑的帮助下，将反对党的支持者划到尽可能少的选区，或者划到尽可能多的控制稳固的选区。

6.4 动机 | Motivation

One way to categorize lawmakers, according to former University of Rochester political science professor Richard Fenno, is by their general motivation:
【参考译文】根据前罗切斯特大学政治学教授理查德·芬诺（Richard Fenno）的说法，可以按照一般动机对立法者进行分类：

1. Reelection: These are lawmakers who “never met a voter they didn’t like” and provide excellent constituent services.
   【参考译文】连任：这些立法者“从未见过不喜欢的选民”，并提供优秀的选民服务。
2. Good public policy: Legislators who “burnish a reputation for policy expertise and leadership”.
   【参考译文】良好的公共政策：立法者通过“提升政策专长和领导力的声誉”来塑造自己的形象。
3. Power in the chamber: Lawmakers who spend serious time along the “rail of the House floor or in the Senate cloakroom ministering to the needs of their colleagues”. Famous legislator Henry Clay in the mid-19th century was described as an “issue entrepreneur” who looked for issues to serve his ambitions.^[190]: 34
   【参考译文】在议会中的权力：那些花费大量时间在“众议院会场边或参议院衣帽间里，满足同事需求”的立法者。19世纪中期著名的立法者亨利·克莱（Henry Clay）被描述为一个寻找问题以服务于其野心的“议题企业家”。[190]: 34

7. 国会议员

7.1 议员权利

国会具有自己的信息部门，为议员提供信息服务，另外，议员也具有远高于一般民众的工资、自己的办公室以及数十雇员。根据美国宪法第一条第六款，议员也具有较少引用的特免权，在参与议会时的行为较公民有较少限制。议员因职务所需的辩论和演讲，亦不会以诽谤罪起诉。

7.2 肉桶立法

主条目：肉桶立法

肉桶立法是指美国国会议员为选区利益，经常于拨款法案（appropriations bills）中夹带附加若干新公共褔利与建设条款（riders），这种以增加拨款案中的金额或拨款案，来为地方谋求利益的立法，在美国政治过程中称为“肉桶立法”（pork-barrel）但实际上该项计划往往多余，只是因为该地所选出的民意代表，为了下一次选举而讨好选民、获取选票的做法。后来，议员们提出法案必须附带提出财源，才使肉桶立法受到限制。

7.3 党派模型

国会中存在大量的党团，最有影响力的是各党派的党团，通知议员该党派的投票策略和其他信息，两党各自组成众议院民主党党团（House Democratic Caucus）和众议院共和党会议（House Republican Conference），以及参议院民主党党团（Senate Democratic Caucus）和参议院共和党会议（Senate Republican Conference）。国会中另有不少就议题组成非正式的党团，多数和各种利益集团有关，提供给议员关于某些特定问题的信息，例如支持台湾的国会台湾党团会议。

8. （议员的）特权 | Privileges

See also: United States House of Representatives § Salary and benefits, and United States Senate § Salary and benefits【另见：美国众议院 § 薪酬与福利，以及美国参议院 § 薪酬与福利】

8.1 外部收入与馈赠 | Outside income and gifts

See also: Revolving door (politics), Supreme Court of the United States § Ethics, and McDonnell v. United States【另见：旋转门（政治）、美国最高法院 § 道德规范，以及麦克唐纳诉美国案】

Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee told Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig that a chief problem with Congress was that members focused on their future careers as lobbyists after serving – that Congress was a “Farm League for K Street“.^[191][192] Family members of active legislators have also been hired by lobbying firms, which while not allowed to lobby their family member, has drawn criticism as a conflict of interest.^[193]
【参考译文】田纳西州众议员吉姆·库珀（Jim Cooper）曾对哈佛大学教授劳伦斯·莱西格（Lawrence Lessig）表示，国会的一个主要问题是议员们过于关注卸任后从事游说工作的前景——国会成了“K街的农场联盟”（Farm League for K Street）。[191][192] 一些在职议员的亲属也被游说公司聘用；尽管这些公司不得游说自己亲属所在的议员，但这种做法仍因利益冲突而受到批评。[193]

Members of congress have been accused of insider trading, such as in the 2020 congressional insider trading scandal, where members of Congress or their family members have traded on stocks related to work on their committees.^[194] One 2011 study concluded that portfolios of members of Congress outperformed both the market and hedge funds, which the authors suggested as evidence of insider trading.^[195] Proposed solutions include putting stocks in blind trusts to prevent future insider trading.^[196]
【参考译文】国会议员曾被指控从事内幕交易。例如，在2020年国会内幕交易丑闻中，一些议员或其家人利用其委员会工作中获得的非公开信息进行股票交易。[194] 一项2011年的研究发现，国会议员的投资组合表现优于整体股市和对冲基金，作者认为这可能是内幕交易的证据。[195] 提出的解决方案包括要求议员将股票放入“盲信托”（blind trusts），以防止未来的内幕交易行为。[196]

Some members of Congress have gone on lavish trips paid for by outside groups, sometimes bringing family members, which are often legal even if in an ethical gray area.^[197][198]
【参考译文】一些国会议员还接受外部团体资助的奢侈旅行，有时甚至携带家人同行。这类旅行虽常处于道德灰色地带，但通常并不违法。[197][198]

8.2 薪酬 | Pay

See also: Salaries of members of the United States Congress【另见：美国国会议员薪资】

Some critics complain congressional pay is high compared with a median American income.^[199] Others have countered that congressional pay is consistent with other branches of government.^[172] Another criticism is that members of Congress are insulated from the health care market due to their coverage.^[200] Others have criticized the wealth of members of Congress.^[153][156] In January 2014, it was reported that for the first time over half of the members of Congress were millionaires.^[201] Congress has been criticized for trying to conceal pay raises by slipping them into a large bill at the last minute.^[202]
【参考译文】有批评者抱怨，国会议员的薪酬远高于美国普通民众的中位收入。[199] 也有观点反驳称，国会议员的薪酬与其他政府部门基本一致。[172] 另一种批评指出，国会议员因其享有专属医保而脱离了普通医疗市场。[200] 还有人批评国会议员普遍富有。[153][156] 2014年1月有报道称，国会议员中百万富翁的比例首次超过一半。[201] 国会还因试图通过在大型法案最后时刻悄悄加入条款来掩盖加薪行为而遭到指责。[202]

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Like other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and participants’ contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. And like federal employees, members contribute one-third of the cost of health insurance with the government covering the other two-thirds.^[203]
【参考译文】1984年以后当选的议员适用联邦雇员退休制度（FERS）。与其他联邦雇员一样，国会退休金由税收和议员个人缴费共同资助。根据FERS规定，议员需将其薪资的1.3%缴入退休计划，并缴纳6.2%的薪资作为社会保障税。此外，议员承担其医疗保险费用的三分之一，其余三分之二由政府支付。[203]

The size of a congressional pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest three years of their salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of their final salary. In 2018, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) was $75,528, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $41,208.^[204]
【参考译文】议员退休金数额取决于其服务年限及其薪资最高的连续三年的平均值。法律规定，议员退休金起始金额不得超过其最终薪资的80%。2018年，根据公务员退休制度（CSRS）退休的参议员和众议员平均年养老金为75,528美元；而根据FERS制度或FERS与CSRS混合制度退休者的平均年养老金为41,208美元。[204]

Members of Congress make fact-finding missions to learn about other countries and stay informed, but these outings can cause controversy if the trip is deemed excessive or unconnected with the task of governing. For example, The Wall Street Journal reported in 2009 that lawmaker trips abroad at taxpayer expense had included spas, $300-per-night extra unused rooms, and shopping excursions.^[205] Some lawmakers responded that “traveling with spouses compensates for being away from them a lot in Washington” and justify the trips as a way to meet officials in other nations.^[205]
【参考译文】国会议员会进行出国考察任务，以了解其他国家情况并保持政策信息更新，但如果行程被认为过于奢侈或与治理职责无关，就可能引发争议。例如，《华尔街日报》2009年报道，一些由纳税人出资的议员海外行程包括水疗、每晚300美元的未使用空房，以及购物活动。[205] 一些议员辩称：“带配偶出行是对长期在华盛顿与家人分离的一种补偿”，并强调此类出访有助于会见他国官员。[205]

By the Twenty-seventh Amendment, changes to congressional pay may not take effect before the next election to the House of the Representatives.^[206] In Boehner v. Anderson, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the amendment does not affect cost-of-living adjustments.^[207][206]
【参考译文】根据美国宪法第二十七条修正案，任何有关国会议员工资的调整必须等到下一届众议院选举之后方可生效。[206] 在“博纳诉安德森案”（Boehner v. Anderson）中，哥伦比亚特区联邦上诉法院裁定，该修正案不适用于生活成本调整（COLA）。[207][206]

8.3 邮资特权 | Postage

The franking privilege allows members of Congress to send official mail to constituents at government expense. Though they are not permitted to send election materials, borderline material is often sent, especially in the run-up to an election by those in close races.^[208][209] Some academics consider free mailings as giving incumbents a big advantage over challengers.^{[9][failed verification][210]}
【参考译文】议员享有“邮资特权”（franking privilege），可免费以官方名义向选民寄送邮件。虽然禁止寄送竞选材料，但在临近选举时，尤其是在竞争激烈的选区，议员常寄送游走于规则边缘的内容。[208][209] 一些学者认为，这种免费邮寄为现任议员提供了相对于挑战者的巨大优势。[9][验证失败][210]

8.4 法律保护 | Protection

Members of Congress enjoy parliamentary privilege, including freedom from arrest in all cases except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace, and freedom of speech in debate. This constitutionally derived immunity applies to members during sessions and when traveling to and from sessions.^[211] The term “arrest” has been interpreted broadly, and includes any detention or delay in the course of law enforcement, including court summons and subpoenas. The rules of the House strictly guard this privilege; a member may not waive the privilege on their own but must seek the permission of the whole house to do so. Senate rules are less strict and permit individual senators to waive the privilege as they choose.^[212]
【参考译文】国会议员享有议会特权，包括除叛国、重罪和破坏治安外免于逮捕的权利，以及在辩论中的言论自由。这一源自宪法的豁免权适用于议员开会期间及往返会场途中。[211] “逮捕”一词在此被广义解释，包括执法过程中的任何形式的拘留或延误，如法院传票和传唤令。众议院对此特权有严格规定：议员不得自行放弃该特权，必须获得全院许可方可放弃。参议院规则则较为宽松，允许个别参议员自行决定是否放弃特权。[212]

The Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of debate in both houses, providing in the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Accordingly, a member of Congress may not be sued in court for slander because of remarks made in either house, although each house has its own rules restricting offensive speeches, and may punish members who transgress.^[213]
【参考译文】宪法保障两院绝对的辩论自由。宪法中的“言论或辩论条款”（Speech or Debate Clause）规定：“两院议员在各自议院所发表的任何言论或进行的任何辩论，在其他任何地方均不得被质询。”因此，国会议员不会因其在任一议院发表的言论而因诽谤被起诉。不过，两院均有内部规则限制攻击性言论，并可对违规议员施以处罚。[213]

Obstructing the work of Congress is a crime under federal law and is known as contempt of Congress. Each member has the power to cite people for contempt but can only issue a contempt citation – the judicial system pursues the matter like a normal criminal case. If convicted in court of contempt of Congress, a person may be imprisoned for up to one year.^[214]
【参考译文】妨碍国会工作属于联邦犯罪，称为“藐视国会”（contempt of Congress）。每位议员都有权提出藐视国会的指控，但只能发出指控——后续需由司法系统像处理普通刑事案件一样进行审理。若经法院判定犯有藐视国会罪，可判处最长一年监禁。[214]

9. 制度漏洞

美国国会众议员和美国国会参议员均只有任期限制而无连任次数限制。可能会出现因议员长期连任导致议员政治影响力过大，进而导致议员选举被操控、架空，甚至出现“民意代表不代表民意”，并较易滋生腐败。有论者认为，若能让国会议员仿效美国总统那样，只能任两届（无论任期是否连续）就能有效规避这一问题。^[2][3]

以往人们对因权力过于集中而引发的专制、权力寻租、极端主义的关注，多着眼于国家元首、政府首脑、政党领袖、最高领导人的任期。不过，假如社会中的其他成员（包括：国会议员、商业巨头、知名专家、名牌大学等）存在权力过于集中，或者说影响力过大，也容易出现同样的问题。^[4][5]

10. 国会席次分布

10.1 第119届

• 参议院：
  • 共和党：53
  • 民主党：45
  • 无党派独立人士（加入民主党团运作）：2
• 众议院：
  • 共和党：220
  • 民主党：213
  • 空缺：2

10.2 第118届

• 参议院：
  • 民主党：48
  • 无党派独立人士（加入民主党团运作）：3
  • 共和党：49
• 众议院：
  • 民主党：212
  • 共和党：221
  • 空缺：2

10.3 第117届

• 参议院：
  • 民主党：48
  • 无党派独立人士（加入民主党团运作）：2
  • 共和党：50
• 众议院：
  • 民主党：218
  • 共和党：212
  • 空缺：5

10.4 第116届

• 参议院：
  • 共和党：52
  • 民主党：46
  • 无党派独立人士（加入民主党团运作）：2
• 众议院：
  • 民主党：233
  • 共和党：197
  • 自由意志党：1
  • 空缺：4

10.5 第115届

• 参议院：
  • 共和党：51
  • 民主党：47
  • 无党派独立人士（加入民主党团运作）：2
• 众议院：
  • 共和党：236
  • 民主党：196

10.6 第114届

• 参议院：
  • 共和党：54
  • 民主党：44
  • 无党派独立人士（加入民主党团运作）：2
• 众议院：
  • 共和党：246
  • 民主党：187

---

A. 参见（维基百科的相关词条）| See also

• 美国期中选举
• 美国国会联席会议
• 美利坚联盟国国会
• Caucuses of the United States Congress【美国国会党团（或：美国国会核心小组）】
• Congressional archives – Records documenting the history and activities of the United States Congress【美国国会档案馆——记录美国国会历史与活动的档案资料】
• Congressional Baseball Game – Annual baseball game played by members of the United States Congress【国会棒球赛——由美国国会议员每年举行的一场棒球比赛】
• Divided government in the United States – Divided control of the US government between political parties【美国分立政府——美国政府权力由不同政党分别掌控的局面】
• Elections in the United States § Congressional elections【美国选举 § 国会选举】
• List of current United States representatives【现任美国众议员列表】
• List of current United States senators【现任美国参议员列表】
• List of United States Congresses【历届美国国会列表】
• Oath of office § United States【就职宣誓 § 美国】
• Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association【广播电视记者协会】
• United States congressional hearing【美国国会听证会】

B. 英文词条参考文献

B1. 引用列表 | Citations

1. ^ “Maine Independent Angus King To Caucus With Senate Democrats”. Politico. November 14, 2012. Archived from the original on December 8, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2020. Angus King of Maine, who cruised to victory last week running as an independent, said Wednesday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats. […] The Senate’s other independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, also caucuses with the Democrats.
2. ^ “Membership of the 116th Congress: A Profile”. Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2020. Congress is composed of 541 individuals from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico.
3. ^ Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 203. ISBN 9780195384208. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
4. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v} John V. Sullivan (July 24, 2007). “How Our Laws Are Made”. U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. Retrieved November 27, 2016.
5. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g} Lee H. Hamilton (2004). How Congress works and why you should care. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-34425-5. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
6. ^ Jump up to:^a b Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
7. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Julian E. Zelizer; Joanne Barrie Freeman; Jack N. Rakove; Alan Taylor, eds. (2004). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. xiii–xiv. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
8. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m} Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
9. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Perry Bacon Jr. (August 31, 2009). “Post Politics Hour: Weekend Review and a Look Ahead”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
10. ^ “Information about the Archives of the United States Senate”. U.S. Senate. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved January 6, 2014.
11. ^ Thomas Paine (1982). Kramnick, Isaac (ed.). Common Sense. Penguin Classics. p. 21.
12. ^ “References about weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation”.*Pauline Maier (book reviewer) (November 18, 2007). “History – The Framers’ Real Motives (book review) Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution book by Woody Holton”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.*“The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise”. PBS. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.*Alexander Hamilton (1788). “Federalist No. 15 – The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union”. FoundingFathers.info. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
13. ^ English (2003), pp. 5–6.
14. ^ Collier (1986), p. 5.
15. ^ James Madison (1787). “James Madison and the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 – Engendering a National Government”. The Library of Congress – American memory. Archived from the original on May 4, 2015. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
16. ^ “The Founding Fathers: New Jersey”. The Charters of Freedom. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on October 9, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
17. ^ “The Presidency: Vetoes”. Time. March 9, 1931. Archived from the original on August 12, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
18. ^ Jump up to:^a b David E. Kyvig (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 362. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
19. ^ David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). “Illegal Health Reform”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 29, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
20. ^ Founding Fathers via FindLaw (1787). “U.S. Constitution: Article I (section 8 paragraph 3) – Article Text – Annotations”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on February 12, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
21. ^ English (2003), p. 7.
22. ^ English (2003), p. 8.
23. ^ “The Convention Timeline”. U.S. Constitution Online. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
24. ^ Eric Patashnik (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
25. ^ James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794 Archived November 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine “I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican Party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose.”
    Thomas Jefferson to President Washington, May 23, 1792 Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine “The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in its present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists. …”
26. ^ Chemerinsky, Erwin (2015). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (5th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4548-4947-6.
27. ^ Van Alstyne, William (1969). “A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison“. Duke Law Journal. 18 (1): 1. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2018.
28. ^ Margaret S. Thompson, The “Spider Web”: Congress and Lobbying in the Age of Grant (1985)
29. ^ Elisabeth S. Clemens, The People’s Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest-Group Politics in the United States, 1890–1925 (1997)
30. ^ “Party in Power – Congress and Presidency – A Visual Guide to the Balance of Power in Congress, 1945–2008”. Uspolitics.about.com. Archived from the original on November 1, 2012. Retrieved September 17, 2012.
31. ^ Davidson, Roger H.; Oleszek, Walter J.; Lee, Frances E.; Schickler, Eric; Curry, James M. (2022). Congress and Its Members (18th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage CQ Press. pp. 161–162. ISBN 9781071836859.
32. ^ Fromkin, Lauren (February 15, 2024). “Cleaning Up House: Reforms to Empower U.S. House Committees”. Bipartisan Policy. Retrieved May 17, 2024.
33. ^ David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey (August 22, 2009). “Illegal Health Reform”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 29, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
34. ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 38. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
35. ^ David E. Kyvig (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
36. ^ “The Congress: 72nd Made”. Time. November 17, 1930. Archived from the original on September 30, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2010.
37. ^ Jump up to:^a b English (2003), p. 14.
38. ^ Farley, Bill (January 25, 2021). “Blending Powers: Hamilton, FDR, and the Backlash That Shaped Modern Congress”. Journal of Policy History. 33 (1): 60–92. doi:10.1017/S089803062000024X. ISSN 0898-0306. S2CID 231694131. Archived from the original on November 4, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
39. ^ “The Congress: Democratic Senate”. Time. November 14, 1932. Archived from the original on October 27, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
40. ^ “Political Notes: Democratic Drift”. Time. November 16, 1936. Archived from the original on December 15, 2008. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
41. ^ Jump up to:^a b “The Congress: The 76th”. Time. November 21, 1938. Archived from the original on August 26, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
42. ^ “The Vice Presidency: Undeclared War”. Time. March 20, 1939. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
43. ^ “Congress: New Houses”. Time. November 11, 1940. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
44. ^ “Before the G.O.P. Lay a Forked Road”. Time. November 16, 1942. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
45. ^ “Business & Finance: Turn of the Tide”. Time. November 16, 1942. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
46. ^ Jump up to:^a b “The Congress: Effort toward Efficiency”. Time. May 21, 1965. Archived from the original on February 20, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
47. ^ “National Affairs: Judgments & Prophecies”. Time. November 15, 1954. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
48. ^ “The Congress: Ahead of the Wind”. Time. November 17, 1958. Archived from the original on January 31, 2011. Retrieved October 10, 2010.
49. ^ Brownstein, Ronald (June 20, 2023). “Why power in Congress is now so precarious | CNN Politics”. CNN. Retrieved May 17, 2024. …two decades of unbroken Democratic Senate control from 1961 to 1980 … Neither side lately has consistently reached the heights that Democrats did while they held unbroken control of the lower chamber from 1955 through 1994 when the party routinely won 250 seats or more.
50. ^ Bruce J. Schulman (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 638. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
51. ^ “The House: New Faces and New Strains”. Time. November 18, 1974. Archived from the original on December 22, 2008.
52. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
53. ^ Nick Anderson (March 30, 2004). “Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
54. ^ Jump up to:^a b Susan Tifft; Richard Homik; Hays Corey (August 20, 1984). “Taking an Ax to the PACs”. Time. Archived from the original on October 29, 2010. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
55. ^ Jump up to:^a b Clymer, Adam (October 29, 1992). “Campaign spending in congress races soars to new high”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
56. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Jeffrey H. Birnbaum (October 3, 2004). “Cost of Congressional Campaigns Skyrockets”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
57. ^ Jump up to:^a b Richard E. Cohen (August 12, 1990). “PAC Paranoia: Congress Faces Campaign Spending – Politics: Hysteria was the operative word when legislators realized they could not return home without tougher campaign finance laws”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
58. ^ Walter Isaacson; Evan Thomas; other bureaus (October 25, 1982). “Running with the PACs”. Time. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
59. ^ Jump up to:^a b John Fritze (March 2, 2009). “PACs spent record $416M on federal election”. USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
60. ^ Thomas Frank (October 29, 2006). “Beer PAC aims to put Congress under influence”. USA TODAY. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
61. ^ Michael Isikoff & Dina Fine Maron (March 21, 2009). “Congress – Follow the Bailout Cash”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
62. ^ Richard L. Berke (February 14, 1988). “Campaign Finance; Problems in the PAC’s: Study Finds Frustration”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
63. ^ Jump up to:^a b c d Michael Schudson (2004). Julian E. Zelizer (ed.). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
64. ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 12. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
65. ^ Mark Murray, NBC News, June 30, 2013, Unproductive Congress: How stalemates became the norm in Washington DC Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
66. ^ Domenico Montanaro, NBC News, October 10, 2013, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 10, 2013, “… 60 percent of Americans … if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress … they would …”
67. ^ Andy Sullivan of Reuters, NBC News, October 17, 2013, Washington: the biggest risk to U.S. economy Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 18, 2013, “… the biggest risk to the world’s largest economy may be its own elected representatives … Down-to-the-wire budget and debt crises, indiscriminate spending cuts and a 16-day government shutdown …”
68. ^ Domenico Montanaro, NBC News, October 10, 2013, NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved October 10, 2013, “… 60 percent of Americans … saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would …”
69. ^ Jump up to:^a b Wall Street Journal, Approval of Congress Matches All-Time Low Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
70. ^ Jump up to:^a b Carrie Dann, NBC News, Americans’ faith in Congress lower than all major institutions – ever Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
71. ^ Jump up to:^a b “White House: Republicans Will ‘Do the Right Thing'”. Voice of America. October 9, 2013. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2013.
72. ^ “USCP Threat Assessment Cases for 2024”. USCP.gov. United States Capitol Police. February 3, 2025. Archived from the original on September 11, 2025.
73. ^ Palmer, Betsy. Delegates to the U.S. Congress: history and current status Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Congressional Research Service; U.S. House of Representatives, “The House Explained Archived November 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine“, viewed January 9, 2015.
74. ^ Ward, Matthew (January 8, 2021). “The US Capitol has been stormed before – when British troops burned Washington in 1814”. The Conversation. Archived from the original on April 7, 2021. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
75. ^ Hunt, Charlie (May 15, 2025). “Congress began losing power decades ago − and now it’s giving away what remains to Trump”. The Conversation (website).
76. ^ Levin, Yuval (May 6, 2025). “The Missing Branch”. The Atlantic. Archived from the original on May 6, 2025.
77. ^ French, David (July 12, 2022). “The Constitution Isn’t Working”. The Atlantic. Archived from the original on June 14, 2025.
78. ^ Barnes, Julian E.; Edmondson, Catie (September 7, 2025). “Trump Tramples Congress’s Power, With Little Challenge From G.O.P.” The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2025.
79. ^ Carl, Hulse; Edmondson, Catie (March 14, 2025). “Under G.O.P., Congress Cedes Power to Trump, Eroding Its Influence”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 14, 2025.
80. ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, pp. 42–43.
81. ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, p. 45.
82. ^ Vogelstein, Rachel; Bro, Alexandra (November 9, 2018). “The ‘Year of the Woman’ goes global”. CNN. Retrieved May 17, 2024.
83. ^ Sullivan, Kate (July 16, 2019). “Here are the 4 congresswomen known as ‘The Squad’ targeted by Trump’s racist tweets”. CNN Politics. Retrieved May 17, 2024.
84. ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, pp. 44–45.
85. ^ Sanbonmatsu 2020, p. 42.
86. ^ Epps, Garrett (2013). American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution. New York: Oxford. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-19-938971-1.
87. ^ Jump up to:^a b Eric Patashnik (2004). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 671–2. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
88. ^ Jump up to:^a b Davidson (2006), p. 18.
89. ^ “Congress and the Dollar”. New York Sun. May 30, 2008. Archived from the original on August 1, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
90. ^ Kate Zernike (September 28, 2006). “Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by Bush”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
91. ^ “References about congressional war declaring power”.
    • Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). “The ‘unitary executive’ question”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
    • Steve Holland (May 1, 2009). “Obama revelling in U.S. power unseen in decades”. Reuters UK. Archived from the original on January 3, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
    • “The Law: The President’s War Powers”. Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
92. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “The Law: The President’s War Powers”. Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
93. ^ “The President’s News Conference of June 29, 1950”. Teachingamericanhistory.org. June 29, 1950. Archived from the original on December 26, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2010.
94. ^ Michael Kinsley (March 15, 1993). “The Case for a Big Power Swap”. Time. Archived from the original on August 13, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
95. ^ “Time Essay: Where’s Congress?”. Time. May 22, 1972. Archived from the original on May 21, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
96. ^ “The Law: The President’s War Powers”. Time. June 1, 1970. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
97. ^ “The proceedings of congress.; senate”. The New York Times. June 28, 1862. Archived from the original on January 11, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
98. ^ David S. Broder (March 18, 2007). “Congress’s Oversight Offensive”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
99. ^ Thomas Ferraro (April 25, 2007). “House committee subpoenas Rice on Iraq”. Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
100. ^ James Gerstenzang (July 16, 2008). “Bush claims executive privilege in Valerie Plame Wilson case”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on August 1, 2008. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
101. ^ Elizabeth B. Bazan; Jennifer K. Elsea; legislative attorneys (January 5, 2006). “Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information” (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 5, 2012. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
102. ^ Linda P. Campbell & Glen Elsasser (October 20, 1991). “Supreme Court Slugfests A Tradition”. Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
103. ^ Eric Cantor (July 30, 2009). “Obama’s 32 Czars”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 31, 2010. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
104. ^ Christopher Lee (January 2, 2006). “Alito Once Made Case For Presidential Power”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
105. ^ Dan Froomkin (March 10, 2009). “Playing by the Rules”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
106. ^ Dana D. Nelson (October 11, 2008). “The ‘unitary executive’ question”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
107. ^ Charlie Savage (March 16, 2009). “Obama Undercuts Whistle-Blowers, Senator Says”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 4, 2009.
108. ^ Binyamin Appelbaum & David Cho (March 24, 2009). “U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms Goal Is to Limit Risk to Broader Economy”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
109. ^ George F. Will – op-ed columnist (December 21, 2008). “Making Congress Moot”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
110. ^ Davidson (2006), p. 19.
111. ^ Kincaid, J. Leslie (January 17, 1916). “To Make the Militia a National Force: The Power of Congress Under the Constitution “for Organizing, Arming, and Disciplining” the State Troops”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
112. ^ Stephen Herrington (February 25, 2010). “Red State Anxiety and The Constitution”. The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on July 2, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
113. ^ “Timeline”. CBS News. 2010. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
114. ^ Randy E. Barnett (April 23, 2009). “The Case for a Federalism Amendment”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 2, 2015. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
115. ^ Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l). “The ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
116. ^ U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Archived June 21, 2022, at the Wayback Machine
117. ^ House Learn Archived November 11, 2017, at the Wayback Machine webpage. Viewed January 26, 2013.
118. ^ The Green Papers, 2016 Presidential primaries, caucuses and conventions Archived January 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, viewed September 3, 2015.
119. ^ “The very structure of the Constitution gives us profound insights about what the founders thought was important … the Founders thought that the Legislative Branch was going to be the great branch of government.” —Hon. John Charles Thomas [1] Archived October 14, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
120. ^ Susan Sachs (January 7, 1999). “Impeachment: The Past; Johnson’s Trial: 2 Bitter Months for a Still-Torn Nation”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
121. ^ Jump up to:^a b Greene, Richard (January 19, 2005). “Kings in the White House”. BBC News. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 7, 2007.
122. ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–19. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
123. ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 19. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
124. ^ Charles Wolfson (August 11, 2010). “Clinton Presses Senate to Ratify Nuclear Arms Treaty with Russia”. CBS News. Archived from the original on September 14, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
125. ^ “Constitutional Interpretation the Old Fashioned Way”. Center For Individual Freedom. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 15, 2007.
126. ^ “Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case”. The New York Times. March 6, 1851. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
127. ^ Waxman, Matthew (November 4, 2018). “Remembering St. Clair’s Defeat”. Lawfare. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
128. ^ Frank Askin (July 21, 2007). “Congress’s Power To Compel”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
129. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Congressional Hearings: About”. GPO Access. September 28, 2005. Archived from the original on August 9, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
130. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Congressional Reports: Main Page”. U.S. Government Printing Office Access. May 25, 2010. Archived from the original on August 7, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
131. ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q} “Tying It All Together: Learn about the Legislative Process”. United States House of Representatives. Archived from the original on April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 20, 2011.
132. ^ English (2003), pp. 46–47.
133. ^ English, p. 46.
134. ^ Schiller, Wendy J. (2000). Partners and Rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate Delegations. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-04887-8.
135. ^ “Committees”. U.S. Senate. 2010. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 12, 2010.
136. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Committee Types and Roles, Congressional Research Service, April 1, 2003.
137. ^ “General Information – Library of Congress”. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on February 24, 2014. Retrieved December 30, 2017.
138. ^ “The Congressional Research Service and the American Legislative Process” (PDF). Congressional Research Service. 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 25, 2009.
139. ^ O’Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 388. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
140. ^ “Congressional Budget Office – About CBO”. Cbo.gov. Archived from the original on December 5, 2010. Retrieved December 20, 2010.
141. ^ Washington Representatives (32 ed.). Bethesda, MD: Columbia Books. November 2007. p. 949. ISBN 978-1-880873-55-7.
142. ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). The American Congress (Fourth ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–18. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
143. ^ Partnership for Public Service (March 29, 2009). “Walter Oleszek: A Hill Staffer’s Guide to Congressional History and Habit”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
144. ^ “Blacks: Confronting the President”. Time. April 5, 1971. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
145. ^ “News from Washington”. The New York Times. December 3, 1861. Archived from the original on January 11, 2013. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
146. ^ United States government (2010). “Recent Votes”. United States Senate. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
147. ^ “The U.S. Congress – Votes Database – Members of Congress / Robert Byrd”. The Washington Post. June 17, 2010. Archived from the original on November 10, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
148. ^ Larry J. Sabato (September 26, 2007). “An amendment is needed to fix the primary mess”. USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
149. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Joseph A. Califano Jr. (May 27, 1988). “PAC’s Remain a Pox”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 2, 2009.
150. ^ Brian Kalish (May 19, 2008). “GOP exits to cost party millions”. USA TODAY. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
151. ^ Jump up to:^a b Susan Page (May 9, 2006). “5 keys to who will control Congress: How immigration, gas, Medicare, Iraq and scandal could affect midterm races”. USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
152. ^ Macedo, Stephen (August 11, 2008). “Toward a more democratic Congress? Our imperfect democratic constitution: the critics examined”. Boston University Law Review. 89: 609–628. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
153. ^ Jump up to:^a b c “Time Essay: Campaign Costs: Floor, Not Ceiling”. Time. May 17, 1971. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
154. ^ Jump up to:^a b c Barbara Borst, Associated Press (October 29, 2006). “Campaign spending up in U.S. congressional elections”. USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
155. ^ Jump up to:^a b Dan Froomkin (September 15, 1997). “Campaign Finance – Introduction”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
156. ^ Jump up to:^a b Thomas, Evan (April 4, 2008). “At What Cost? – Sen. John Warner and Congress’s money culture”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
157. ^ “References about diffname”.
     • Jean Merl (October 18, 2000). “Gloves Come Off in Attack Ads by Harman, Kuykendall”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Shanto Iyengar (August 12, 2008). “Election 2008: The Advertising”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Dave Lesher (September 12, 1994). “Column One – TV Blitz Fueled by a Fortune – Once obscure, Huffington now is pressing Feinstein. His well-financed rapid-response team has mounted an unprecedented ad attack”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Howard Kurtz (October 28, 1998). “Democrats Chase Votes With a Safety Net”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
158. ^ James Oliphant (April 9, 2008). “’08 Campaign costs nearing $2 Billion. Is it worth it?”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
159. ^ “Campaign Finance Groups Praise Rep. Welch for Cosponsoring Fair Elections Now Act”. Reuters. May 19, 2009. Archived from the original on January 22, 2010. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
160. ^ John Balzar (May 24, 2006). “Democrats Battle Over a Safe Seat in Congress”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
161. ^ “The Congress: An Idea on the March”. Time. January 11, 1963. Archived from the original on May 1, 2011. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
162. ^ “Decision ’92 – Special Voters’ Guide to State and Local Elections – The Congressional Races”. Los Angeles Times. October 25, 1992. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
163. ^ “References about prevalence of attack ads”.
     • Brooks Jackson & Justin Bank (February 5, 2009). “Radio, Radio – New Democratic ads attacking House Republicans in the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections don’t tell the whole story”. Newsweek. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Fredreka Schouten (September 19, 2008). “Union helps non-profit groups pay for attack ads”. USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Ruth Marcus (August 8, 2007). “Attack Ads You’ll Be Seeing”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Chris Cillizza (September 20, 2006). “Ads, Ads Everywhere!”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
     • Samantha Gross (September 7, 2007). “Coming Soon: Personalized Campaign Ads”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
164. ^ Howard Kurtz (January 6, 2008). “Campaign on Television People May Dislike Attack Ads, but the Messages Tend to Stick”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2009.
165. ^ Jump up to:^a b Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 21. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
166. ^ Lobbying: influencing decision making with transparency and integrity (PDF). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 11, 2019. Retrieved March 30, 2019.
167. ^ Jump up to:^a b Alexander Hamilton or James Madison (February 8, 1788). “The Federalist Paper No. 52”. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
168. ^ “Congress’ Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year”. Reuters. September 2, 2009. Archived from the original on September 5, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
169. ^ “The Congress: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)”. Time. September 22, 1930. Archived from the original on August 27, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
170. ^ Jonathan Peterson (October 21, 1996). “Confident Clinton Lends Hand to Congress Candidates”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
171. ^ “References about diffname”.
     • “The Congress: Makings of the 72nd (Cont.)”. Time. September 22, 1930. Archived from the original on August 27, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • Maki Becker (June 17, 1994). “Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics – Looking for Answers to Voter Apathy”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • Daniel Brumberg (October 30, 2008). “America’s Re-emerging Democracy”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 10, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • Karen Tumulty (July 8, 1986). “Congress Must Now Make Own Painful Choices”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • Janet Hook (December 22, 1997). “As U.S. Economy Flows, Voter Vitriol Ebbs”. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
172. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Congress gets $4,100 pay raise”. USA Today. Associated Press. January 9, 2008. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 28, 2009.
173. ^ Gallup Poll/Newsweek (October 8, 2009). “Congress and the Public: Congressional Job Approval Ratings Trend (1974–present)”. The Gallup Organization. Archived from the original on August 7, 2013. Retrieved October 8, 2009.
174. ^ “References about low approval ratings”.
     • “Congress’ Approval Rating Jumps to 31%”. Gallup. February 17, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • “Congress’ Approval Rating at Lowest Point for Year”. Reuters. September 2, 2009. Archived from the original on September 5, 2009. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • John Whitesides (September 19, 2007). “Bush, Congress at record low ratings: Reuters poll”. Reuters. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
     • Seung Min Kim (February 18, 2009). “Poll: Congress’ job approval at 31%”. USA Today. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
175. ^ interview by David Schimke (September–October 2008). “Presidential Power to the People – Author Dana D. Nelson on why democracy demands that the next president be taken down a notch”. Utne Reader. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
176. ^ Guy Gugliotta (November 3, 2004). “Politics In, Voter Apathy Out Amid Heavy Turnout”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 14, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
177. ^ “Voter Turnout Rate Said to Be Highest Since 1968”. The Washington Post. Associated Press. December 15, 2008. Archived from the original on October 14, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2009.
178. ^ Julian E. Zelizer, ed. (2004). “The American Congress: The Building of Democracy”. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. xiv–xv. ISBN 0-618-17906-2. Archived from the original on October 19, 2017. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
179. ^ Norman, Jim (June 13, 2016). “Americans’ Confidence in Institutions Stays Low”. Gallup. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved June 14, 2016.
180. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Roger Sherman and The Connecticut Compromise”. Connecticut Judicial Branch: Law Libraries. January 10, 2010. Archived from the original on January 17, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
181. ^ Cass R. Sunstein (October 26, 2006). “It Could Be Worse”. The New Republic. Archived from the original on July 30, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
182. ^ Robert Justin Lipkin (January 2007). “Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People can Correct It)”. Widener University School of Law. Archived from the original on September 25, 2009. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
183. ^ Sanford Levinson (2006). “Our Undemocratic Constitution”. Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9780195345612. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 10, 2010.
184. ^ Labunski, Richard; Schwartz, Dan (October 18, 2007). “Time for a Second Constitutional Convention?”. Policy Today. Archived from the original on November 20, 2009. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
185. ^ Charles L. Clapp, The Congressman, His Work as He Sees It (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1963), p. 55; cf. pp. 50–55, 64–66, 75–84.
186. ^ Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 35 (September 3, 1977): 1855. English, op. cit., pp. 48–49, notes that members will also regularly appear at local events in their home district, and will maintain offices in the home congressional district or state.
187. ^ Robert Preer (August 15, 2010). “Two Democrats in Senate race stress constituent services”. Boston Globe. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
188. ^ Daniel Malloy (August 22, 2010). “Incumbents battle association with stimulus, Obama”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
189. ^ Amy Gardner (November 27, 2008). “Wolf’s Decisive Win Surprised Even the GOP”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
190. ^ Jump up to:^a b William T. Blanco, ed. (2000). “Congress on display, Congress at work”. University of Michigan. ISBN 0-472-08711-8. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
191. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (February 8, 2010). “How to Get Our Democracy Back”. CBS News. Archived from the original on January 20, 2013. Retrieved December 14, 2011.
192. ^ Lessig, Lawrence (November 16, 2011). “Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It”. Google, YouTube, The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on December 5, 2013. Retrieved December 13, 2011. (see 30:13 minutes into the video)
193. ^ Attkisson, Sharyl (June 25, 2010). “Family Ties Bind Federal Lawmakers to Lobbyists – CBS News”. www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved May 15, 2024.
194. ^ Parlapiano, Alicia; Playford, Adam; Kelly, Kate; Uz, Ege (September 13, 2022). “These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 15, 2024.
195. ^ Schwartz, John (July 9, 2011). “Not-So-Representative Investors”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 15, 2024.
196. ^ Vitali, Ali; Tsirkin, Julie; Talbot, Haley (February 8, 2022). “Stock ban proposed for Congress to stop insider trading among lawmakers”. NBC News. Retrieved May 15, 2024.
197. ^ Leonard, Kimberly. “An $84,000 trip to Qatar and a $41,000 retreat in Miami: Members of Congress are going on expensive travels paid for by private groups where some bring their loved ones”. Business Insider. Retrieved May 15, 2024.
198. ^ House, Billy (March 18, 2023). “US Lawmakers Resume Globe Trotting Paid by Special Interests”. Bloomberg.
199. ^ Lee, Timothy B. (September 19, 2013). “This chart shows why members of Congress really should earn more than $172,000”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2024.
200. ^ Lui, Kevin (March 17, 2017). “A Petition to Remove Health Care Subsidies From Members of Congress Has Nearly 500000 Signatures”. Time Magazine. Washington D.C. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved May 22, 2018.
201. ^ Lipton, Eric (January 9, 2014). “Half of Congress Members Are Millionaires, Report Says”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2014.
202. ^ “A Quiet Raise – Congressional Pay – special report”. The Washington Post. 1998. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved February 23, 2015.
203. ^ Scott, Walter (April 25, 2010). “Personality Parade column:Q. Does Congress pay for its own health care?”. New York, NY: Parade. p. 2.
204. ^ Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress Archived October 14, 2022, at the Wayback Machine (PDF). Congressional Research Service, August 8, 2019.
205. ^ Jump up to:^a b Brody Mullins & T. W. Farnam (December 17, 2009). “Congress Travels More, Public Pays: Lawmakers Ramp Up Taxpayer-Financed Journeys; Five Days in Scotland”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
206. ^ Jump up to:^a b “Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 27 – “Financial Compensation for the Congress””. Ronald Reagan. Retrieved May 17, 2024.
207. ^ 30 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
208. ^ English (2003), pp. 24–25.
209. ^ Simpson, G. R. (October 22, 1992). “Surprise! Top Frankers Also Have the Stiffest Challenges”. Roll Call.
210. ^ Steven S. Smith; Jason M. Roberts; Ryan J. Vander Wielen (2006). “The American Congress (Fourth Edition)”. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 9781139446990. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2010.
211. ^ Davidson (2006), p. 17.
212. ^ “Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration”. www.rules.senate.gov. Archived from the original on December 30, 2017. Retrieved September 30, 2022.
213. ^ Brewer, F. M. (1952). “Congressional Immunity”. CQ Press. doi:10.4135/cqresrre1952042500. Archived from the original on January 25, 2021. Retrieved January 16, 2021.
214. ^ “Contempt of Congress”. HeinOnline. The Jurist. January 1, 1957. ProQuest 1296619169. Retrieved September 7, 2020.

B2. 来源文献 | References

• “How To Clean Up The Mess From Inside The System, A Plea – And A Plan – To Reform Campaign Finance Before It’s Too”. Newsweek. October 28, 1996. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
• “The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise”. PBS. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
• Alexander Hamilton (1788). “Federalist No. 15 – The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union”. FoundingFathers.info. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
• Bacon, Donald C.; Davidson, Roger H.; Keller, Morton, eds. (1995). Encyclopedia of the United States Congress (4 vols.). Simon & Schuster.
• Collier, Christopher & Collier, James Lincoln (1986). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-394-52346-6.
• Davidson, Roger H. & Walter J. Oleszek (2006). Congress and Its Members (10th ed.). Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Press. ISBN 0-87187-325-7. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)
• English, Ross M. (2003). The United States Congress. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6309-4.
• Francis-Smith, Janice (October 22, 2008). “Waging campaigns against incumbents in Oklahoma”. The Oklahoma City Journal Record. Archived from the original on May 10, 2010. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
• Herrnson, Paul S. (2004). Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. CQ Press. ISBN 1-56802-826-1.
• Huckabee, David C. (2003). Reelection Rates of Incumbents. Hauppauge, New York: Novinka Books, an imprint of Nova Science Publishers. p. 21. ISBN 1-59033-509-0. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
• Huckabee, David C. – Analyst in American National Government – Government Division (March 8, 1995). “Reelection rate of House Incumbents 1790–1990 Summary (page 2)” (PDF). Congressional Research Service – The Library of Congress. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 29, 2011. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
• Maier, Pauline (book reviewer) (November 18, 2007). “HISTORY – The Framers’ Real Motives (book review) Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution book by Woody Holton”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
• Oleszek, Walter J. (2004). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. CQ Press. ISBN 0-87187-477-6.
• Polsby, Nelson W. (2004). How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516195-5.
• Price, David E. (2000). The Congressional Experience. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-1157-8.
• Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020). “Women’s Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress”. Daedalus. 149: 40–55. doi:10.1162/daed_a_01772. ISSN 0011-5266. S2CID 209487865. Archived from the original on April 24, 2021. Retrieved April 6, 2021.
• Struble, Robert Jr. (2007). Chapter seven, Treatise on Twelve Lights. TeLL. Archived from the original on April 14, 2016.
• Zelizer, Julian E. (2004). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-17906-2.

C. 中文词条参考文献

1. ^ 第一款本宪法所授予的全部立法权均属于由参议院和众议院组成的合众国国会 (PDF). 美国国务院. [2023-04-29]. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2021-11-13） （中文（简体））.
2. ^ 川普呼吁限制国会议员任期. www.voachinese.com. [2021-02-10]. （原始内容存档于2021-02-12）.
3. ^ 美国议员的任期限制制度改革：内容与评估. 读览天下. [2020年2月10日]. （原始内容存档于2021年2月12日） （中文（中国大陆））.
4. ^ 美国反垄断史百年风云. 新浪财经. 2020年12月22日 [2021年2月12日]. （原始内容存档于2021年4月12日） （中文（中国大陆））.
5. ^ 孙晋. 互联网巨头更应拥抱监管，为实体经济作出贡献. 中新经纬. 2020-12-31 [2021年2月12日]. （原始内容存档于2021-05-02） （中文（中国大陆））.

D. 延伸阅读 | Further reading

• Ritchie, Donald A. (2022). The U.S. Congress: A Very Short Introduction. (History, representation, and legislative procedure)
• Smith, Steven S.; Roberts, Jason M.; Vander Wielen, Ryan (2007). The American Congress (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19704-5. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)
• Hamilton, Lee H. (2004) How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, Indiana University Press.
• Lee, Frances and Bruce Oppenheimer. (1999). Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Equal representation in the Senate)
• Some information in this article has been provided by the Senate Historical Office.

E. 外部链接 | External links

• Official website【官方网站】 
• U.S. House of Representatives【美国众议院】
• U.S. Senate【美国参议院】
• 国会图书馆 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） （英文）
• 关于美国国会 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） （英文）
• 美国政府追踪网站 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） （英文）
• 法治为民主奠定基础（简体中文）
• 选举政治词汇（简体中文）