The Speaker and the Budget: Leadership in the Post-Reform House of Representatives.

In 1975, when Speaker Carl Albert cautiously urged the House of Representatives to support the first congressional budget resolution, he emphasized protecting the new process, daring not to "make a brief for any particular provision of position" (p.209). Could Albert have even imagined that twelve years later, Speaker Jim Wright would not only use the budget resolution as a means to assert his own policy priorities, but would be willing to hold a vote open after time had expired in order to reverse the outcome of a critical budget vote? In his final chapter of The Speaker and the Budget, Daniel J. Palazzolo uses this example effectively to highlight the major transformations that have taken place in both the office of the Speaker and congressional budgeting. While much has been written on both subjects, Palazzolo's book is unique in focusing on how the Speaker and the congressional budget process have influenced each other within a context of dramatic changes in the economic, political, and policy environment.

Studies of congressional leadership over the years have differed in the degree that they emphasize individual leadership styles and skills versus the broader political and institutional environment in which leaders operate. The author introduces his study by asserting that congressional leadership depends on both contextual and individual factors. To examine this premise, the book compares the various roles that Speakers Albert, O'Neill, and Wright played in the congressional budget process from 1975 to 1988 in the face of changing political, policy, and institutional conditions. In chapter 2, the author reviews the major congressional reforms of the late 1960s and early 1970s, including the 1974 Budget Act, particularly in terms of their effect on the office of Speaker. In chapter 3, he looks at the early years of the budget process. Palazzolo suggests that Speaker Albert generally played the role of "nurturer", trying to use his personal skills and influence to see that the Budget Committee, the budget resolutions, and the new timetable be accepted as part of House procedures. This role evolved into what the author calls "process manager" after Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill became speaker in 1977. By 1980, as pressure mounted within Congress to use the budget process to reduce spending, O'Neill's role of process manager increasingly came into conflict with his personal preferences and ideology.

1981 was a critical year in the history of congressional budgeting and the author devotes an entire chapter to its account. The Speaker's role in budgeting changed and the author concludes that "O'Neill was overwhelmed by political and institutional changes, procedural innovations, and effective presidential skills" (p.127). Chapter 5 concentrates on the evolving context of congressional budgeting in the mid-1980s and O'Neill's role as opposition party leader. Growing interbranch conflict, procedural instability in budgeting, increasing party loyalty in voting, and the deficits changed the demands on the Speaker. Yet despite these changes and the growing centralization of power in the House, because of his own leadership style, O'Neill did not fully exploit the potential to use the budget process for pursuing his own policy agenda. This would change, however, when Jim Wright became Speaker in 1987. Chapter 6 reviews Wright's activist leadership in the 100th Congress, demonstrating the potential (as well as the limits) of the budget process in the hands of a more aggressive Speaker.

Palazzolo concludes that the evidence shows the importance of both contextual factors and individual leadership differences in the post-reform era. The policy role of the Speaker expanded significantly in this period, but paradoxically, he notes, the expansion of leadership also demonstrated the inherent limitations that remain. His conclusions, like most of the evidence and arguments of earlier chapters, are balanced, well reasoned, and generally convincing. In general, this is an excellent study, effective because of its specific focus, but without being too narrow to include major developments in the environment for leadership. The book would have benefitted from more explicit treatment of the Speaker's relationship with the majority leader and the apparatus of House leadership in general. It would have also been useful for the author to compare and contrast more carefully the Speaker's role in the budget process with his role in the authorizing, appropriations, and revenue-raising processes. It would have been particularly interesting if the study could have been extended to include the Speakership of Tom Foley, providing an opportunity to test some of the conclusions about individual leadership styles. Perhaps this could be the subject of a revised edition. Overall, it is a thoughtful and readable book that will be of interest to students of legislative leadership, budgeting, and Congress in general.

Lance T. LeLoup

University of Missouri - St. Louis