Chapter 11: Government in America PDF

make difficult choices regarding public policy, such as reining in spending. Others argue that Congress is too insulated from ordinary citizens and makes policy to suit the few rather 11.1 than the many. Yet other critics focus on Congress as the source of government expansion. Does Congress’s re...

make difficult choices regarding public policy, such as reining in spending. Others argue that Congress is too insulated from ordinary citizens and makes policy to suit the few rather 11.1 than the many. Yet other critics focus on Congress as the source of government expansion. Does Congress’s responsiveness predispose the legislature to increase the size of govern- ment to please those in the public wanting more or larger government programs? 11.2 The Framers of the Constitution conceived of the legislature as the center of policymaking in America. Their plan was for the great disputes over public policy to 11.3 be resolved in Congress, not in the White House or the Supreme Court. Although the prominence of Congress has ebbed and flowed over the course of American history, as often as not, Congress is the true center of power in Washington. Congress’s tasks become more difficult each year. On any given day, a representative or 11.4 senator can be required to make sensible judgments about missiles, nuclear waste dumps, abortion, trade competition with China, income tax rates, the soaring costs of Social Security and Medicare, or any of countless other issues. The proposal for the 2010 health 11.5 care reform bill was about 1,400 pages long and weighed 6 pounds. Just finding time to think about these issues—much less debate them—has become increasingly difficult. Despite the many demands of the job, there is no shortage of men and women running for congressional office. The following sections will introduce you to these people. The Representatives and Senators Characterize the backgrounds of members of Congress and assess their impact on the 11.1 ability of members of Congress to represent average Americans. eing a member of Congress is a difficult and unusual job. A person must be B willing to spend considerable time, trouble, and money to obtain a crowded office on Capitol Hill. To nineteenth-century humorist Artemus Ward, such a quest was inexplicable: “It’s easy to see why a man goes to the poor- house or the penitentiary. It’s because he can’t help it. But why he should voluntarily go live in Washington is beyond my comprehension.” The Members To many Americans, being a member of Congress may seem like a glamorous job. What citizens do not see are the 14-hour days spent dashing from one meeting to the next (members are often scheduled to be in two places at the same time),1 the con- tinuous travel between Washington and constituencies, the lack of time for reflection or exchange of ideas, the constant fund-raising, the partisan rancor that permeates Congress, and—perhaps most important of all—the feeling that Congress is making little headway in solving the country’s problems. There are attractions to the job, however. First and foremost is power. Members of Congress make key decisions about important matters of public policy. In addition, members of Congress earn a salary of $174,000—about three times the income of the typical American family, although far below that of hundreds of corporate presi- dents—and they receive generous retirement and health benefits. There are 535 members of Congress. An even 100—2 from each state—are mem- bers of the Senate. The other 435 are members of the House of Representatives. The Constitution specifies only that members of the House must be at least 25 years old and American citizens for 7 years, that senators must be at least 30 and American citi- zens for 9 years, and that all members of Congress must reside in the state from which they are elected. Members of Congress are not typical or average Americans, however, as the figures in Table 11.1 reveal. Those who argue that the country is run by a power elite 361 11.1 TABLE 11.1 A PORTRAIT OF THE 113TH CONGRESS: SOME STATISTICS Characteristic House (435 Total) Senate (100 Total) Party 11.2 Democrat 201 53 Republican 234 45 Independent – 2 11.3 Gender Men 357 80 Women 78 20 Race/Ethnicity 11.4 Asian 9 2 African American 44 0 Hispanic 25 3 11.5 White and other 357 95 Average age† 56 62 † Percent Percent Religion Protestant 53 62 Roman Catholic 31 22 Jewish 7 12 Other and unspecified 9 4 Prior occupation*† Percent Percent Public service/politics 40 36 Law 34 52 Business 42 28 Education 16 13 Other 41 35 † Data for 112th Congress. * Some members specify more than one occupation. SOURCE: Congressional Quarterly. are quick to point out that members come largely from occupations with high status and usually have substantial incomes. Although calling the Senate a “millionaire’s club” is an exaggeration, the proportion of millionaires and near millionaires is much higher in Congress than in an average crowd of 535 people. Business and law are the dominant prior occupations; other elite occupations such as academia are also well represented. The prominence of lawyers in Congress is not surprising. Law especially attracts persons interested in politics and provides the flexibility (and often the financial sup- port of a law firm) to wage election campaigns. In addition, many government posi- tions in which aspiring members of Congress can make their marks, such as district attorney, are reserved for lawyers. Some prominent groups are underrepresented. African Americans make up about 10 percent of the members of the House (compared with about 13 percent of the total population), but there is no African American in the Senate. There are 25 Hispanics in the House and 3 in the Senate, although Hispanics represent 16 percent of the population. Asian and Native Americans are also underrepresented. However, women may be the most underrepresented group; females account for more than half the population but for only 18 percent of members of the House of Representatives—78 voting representatives (as well as the nonvoting representative from Washington, D.C.)—and for 20 senators. How important are the personal characteristics of members of Congress? Can a group of predominantly white, upper-middle-class, middle-aged Protestant males adequately represent a much more diverse population? Would a group more typical of 362  11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Representation is at the heart of democracy, but members of Congress may have different backgrounds than many of their constituents. Here Representative Michael McMahon of New York talks with constituents at an Arab-American Heritage festival. the population be more effective in making major policy decisions? The backgrounds of representatives and senators can be important if they influence how they priori- tize and vote on issues. There is evidence that African American members are more active than are white members in serving African American constituents,2 and they appear to increase African American constituents’ contact with and knowledge about Congress.3 On the average, women legislators seem to be more active than are men in pursuing the interests of women.4 By the same token, representatives with a business background are more pro-business (less supportive of regulations, for example) than are other members,5 while members from working-class occupations are more liberal on economic matters.6 Obviously, members of Congress cannot claim descriptive representation—that is, representing constituents by mirroring their personal, politically relevant characteristics. They may, however, engage in substantive representation—representing the interests of groups of which they themselves are not members.7 For example, members of Congress with a background of wealth and privilege can be champions for the interests of the poor, as was the case with the late Senator Edward Kennedy. Moreover, most members of Congress have lived in the constituencies they represent for many years and share the beliefs and attitudes of a large proportion of their constituents, even if they do not share their demographic characteristics. If they do not share their constituents’ perspectives, they may find it difficult to keep their seats come elections. At the same time, women and African Americans in Congress are achieving important positions on committees, increasing the chances of making descriptive representation effective.8 Why Aren’t There More Women in Congress? Sarah Fulton, a scholar of women in politics, found that in the 2010 elections, women won 53 percent of the House races in which they competed and 40 percent of the Senate races.9 Yet, despite this record, we have seen that women in Congress occupy less than a fifth of both U.S. House and Senate seats. If women have proven themselves capable of competing with and winning against men, why aren’t there more women in Congress? Part of the reason for women’s underrepresentation is that fewer women than men become major party nominees for office. For example, in 2010 a female major-party 363  incumbents nominee contested only 32 percent of the 435 House races and 41 percent of the 11.1 Those already holding office. In Senate races. In a recent article, Fulton and her coauthors report that women with congressional elections, incumbents children are significantly less ambitious about running for office than are their male usually win. counterparts, largely because of greater child care responsibilities; however, they find 11.2 no gender disparity in ambition when looking at women without children. The authors also suggest that women’s decisions to run are more sensitive than are men’s to their perceptions of the odds of winning: women are less likely than are men to run when 11.3 they perceive their odds to be poor; however, they are more likely than are men to run when they detect a political opportunity.10 In addition to the supply of female candidates, there is the issue of the electorate’s demand. Women candidates usually rank higher than males with voters on non-policy 11.4 characteristics such as integrity, competence, collaboration, and problem-solving skills. If we control for these greater qualifications of women candidates, they encounter a 3 percent vote disadvantage relative to their male counterparts. Male independents 11.5 voters on average have a small bias toward male candidates and against female candidates. Female independent voters, however, do not exhibit a corresponding affinity for female candidates. Thus, to win, women must be more qualified on average than their male opponents.11 Congressional Elections 11.2 Identify the principal factors influencing the outcomes in congressional elections. ongressional elections are demanding, expensive,12 and, as you will see, C generally foregone conclusions—yet members of Congress are first and foremost politicians. Men and women may run for Congress to forge new policy initiatives, but they also enjoy politics and consider a position in Congress near the top of their chosen profession. Even if they dislike politics, without reelection they will not be around long enough to shape policy. Who Wins Elections? Incumbents are individuals who already hold office. Sometime during each term, the incumbent must decide whether to run again or to retire voluntarily. Most decide to run for reelection. They enter their party’s primary, almost always emerge victorious, and typically win in the November general election, too. Indeed, the most predictable aspect of congressional elections is this: incumbents usually win (see Figure 11.1). Even in a year of great political upheaval such as 2010, in which the Republicans gained 6 seats in the Senate and 63 seats in the House, 84 percent of incumbent senators and 85 percent of incumbent representatives won their bids for reelection. In the case of the House, not only do more than 90 percent of incumbents seeking reelection usually win, but most of them win with more than 60 percent of the vote. Perhaps most astonishing is the fact that even when challengers’ positions on the issues are closer to the voters’ positions, incumbents still tend to win.13 Why It Matters to You Incumbent Success If congressional seats were more competitive, it would be easier to change Congress. However, fewer members of Congress would have expertise on com- plex policy issues. 364 F I G U R E 1 1. 1 THE INCUMBENCY FACTOR IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 11.1 It is not unusual for the public to disapprove of the performance of Congress as a whole, but it is unusual for incumbents to lose their bids for reelection. The many advantages of incumbency make it difficult to make substantial changes in the makeup of Congress in one election. 11.2 INCUMBENT CANDIDATES REELECTED 100 House incumbents 95 90 11.3 PERCENTAGE OF 85 80 75 11.4 70 65 11.5 Senate incumbents 60 55 1958 ’60 ’62 ’64 ’66 ’68 ’70 ’72 ’74 ’76 ’78 ’80 ’82 ’84 ’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98 ’00 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08 ’10 ’12 ELECTION YEAR SOURCE: Data compiled by the authors. Figures reflect incumbents running in both primary and general elections. The picture for the Senate is a little different. Even though senators still have a good chance of beating back a challenge, the odds of reelection are often not as handsome as for House incumbents; senators typically win by narrower margins. One reason for the greater competition in the Senate is that an entire state is almost always more diverse than a congressional district and thus provides a larger base for opposi- tion to an incumbent. At the same time, senators have less personal contact with their constituencies, which on average are about 10 times larger than those of members of the House of Representatives. Senators also receive more coverage in the media than representatives do and are more likely to be held accountable on controversial issues. Moreover, senators tend to draw more skilled and visible challengers, such as governors or members of the House, whom voters already know and who have substantial finan- cial backing—a factor that lessens the advantages of incumbency. Despite their success at reelection, incumbents often feel quite vulnerable. As Thomas Mann put it, members of Congress perceive themselves as “unsafe at any margin.”14 Thus, they have been raising and spending more campaign funds, sending more mail to their constituents, visiting their states and districts more often, and staff- ing more local offices than ever before.15 The Advantages of Incumbency There are several possible explanations for the success of incumbents. One is that voters know how their elected representatives vote on important policy issues and agree with their stands, sending them back to Washington to keep up the good work. This, however, is usually not the case. Most citizens have trouble recalling the names of their congressional representatives (in one poll only 28 percent of the public could name their representatives in the House), let alone keeping up with their representatives’ voting records. One study found that only about one-fifth of Americans could make an accurate guess about how their representatives voted on any issue in Congress;16 in an American National Election Study, only 11 percent of the people even claimed to remember how their congressperson voted on a particular issue. The public’s knowledge of congressional candidates declines precipitously once we look beyond simple recognition and generalized feelings. Another possibility is that voter assessments of presidential candidates influence their voting for Congress. Most stories of presidential “coattails” (when voters support congressional candidates because of their support for the president), however, seem to be just stories.17 Bill Clinton and George W. Bush won four presidential elections between 365  casework them. Yet in each election they received a smaller percentage of the vote than did almost 11.1 Activities of members of Congress every winning member of their party in Congress. They had little in the way of coattails. that help constituents as individu- Journalists often claim that voters are motivated primarily by their pocketbooks. als, particularly by cutting through Yet members of Congress do not gain or lose many votes as a result of the ups and bureaucratic red tape to get people 11.2 what they think they have a right downs of the economy.18 to get. What accounts for the success of congressional incumbents? Members of Congress engage in three primary activities that increase the probability of their reelection: 11.3 advertising, credit claiming, and position taking.19 The lack of strong opponents and the high costs of campaigning further ensure their success. 11.4 ADVERTISING For members of Congress, advertising means much more than plac- ing ads in the newspapers and on television. Most congressional advertising takes place between elections in the form of contact with constituents. The goal is visibility. Members of Congress work hard to get themselves known in their constituencies, and 11.5 they usually succeed. Not surprisingly, members concentrate on staying visible and make frequent trips home. In a typical week, members spend some time in their home districts, even though their districts may be hundreds of miles from Washington. Similarly, mem- bers use the franking privilege to mail newsletters to every household in their constituency. More recently, members of Congress have employed technology to bring franking into the digital age. Congressional staffers track the interests of individual voters, file the information in a database, and then use e-mails or phone calls to engage directly with voters on issues they know they care about. Using taxpayers’ money, legislators employ a new technology that allows them to call thousands of households simul- taneously with a recorded message, inviting people in their districts to join in on a conference call. With the push of a button, the constituent is on the line with the House member—and often 1,000 or more fellow constituents. Equally important, the lawmaker knows, from the phone numbers, where the respondents live and, from what they say on the call, what issues interest them. Information gathered from these events, as well as from e-mails and phone calls from constituents, gets plugged into a database, giving the incumbent something a challenger could only dream of: a detailed list of the specific interests of thousands of would-be voters. E-mail then allows for personal interaction—and a free reminder of why the incumbent should be reelected. CREDIT CLAIMING Congresspersons also engage in credit claiming, which involves enhancing their standing with constituents through service to individuals and the district. One member told Richard Fenno about the image he tried to cultivate in his constituency: [I have] a very high recognition factor. And of all the things said about me, none of them said, “He’s a conservative or a liberal,” or “He votes this way on such and such an issue.” None of that at all. There were two things said. One, “He works hard.” Two, “He works for us.” Nothing more than that. So we made it our theme, “O’Connor gets things done”; and we emphasized the dams, the highways, the buildings, the casework.20 Morris Fiorina argues that members of Congress can go to the voters and stress their policymaking record and their stands on new policy issues on the agenda but that the problem with this is that policy positions make enemies as well as friends. A member of Congress’s vote for reducing government spending may win some friends, but it will make enemies of voters who link that vote with service cutbacks. Besides, a congressper- son can almost never show that he or she alone was responsible for a major policy. Being only 1 of 435 members of the House or 1 of 100 senators, a person can hardly promise to end inflation, cut taxes, or achieve equal rights for women single-handedly.21 One thing, however, always wins friends and almost never makes enemies: servicing the constituency. Members of Congress can do this in two ways: through casework and through the pork barrel. Casework is helping constituents as individuals—cutting through some bureaucratic red tape to give people what they think they have a right to get. Do you have trouble getting your check from the Social Security Administration 366 on time? Call your congressperson; he or she can cut red tape. Does your town have  11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 Because claiming credit may be important for reelection, members of Congress rarely pass up the opportunity to increase federal spending in their state or district. The early 2000s witnessed a surge in earmarks of expenditures for specific projects. The most expensive was the “Big Dig” in Boston, which rerouted a principal highway so that it went through a 3.5-mile tunnel, rather than through the heart of the city. trouble getting federal bureaucrats to respond to its request for federal construction pork barrel money? Call your congressperson. Representatives and senators can single-handedly Federal projects, grants, and contracts take credit for each of these favors. available to state and local govern- The second way of servicing the constituency involves winning federal funds for ments, businesses, colleges, and other institutions in a congressional district. states and districts. The pork barrel is composed of federal projects, grants, and con- tracts available to state and local governments, businesses, colleges, and other institu- tions. Members of Congress love to take credit for a new highway, sewage treatment plant, or research institute. Often, they announce the awards through their offices. As a result of the advantages of incumbency in advertising and credit claiming, incumbents, especially in the House, are usually much better known than their oppo- nents and have a more favorable public image.22 Getting things done for the folks back home often wins an incumbent the chance to serve them again. Yet, for all the advantage they confer, by themselves casework and pork barrel, even shrewdly deployed, do not determine congressional elections.23 POSITION TAKING Even if, in establishing their public images, members of Congress emphasize their experience, hard work, trustworthiness, and service to their constituencies—qualities unrelated to partisan or programmatic content—they must take positions on policies when they vote and when they respond to constituents’ ques- tions And the positions they take may affect the outcome of an election, particularly if the issues are on matters salient to voters and the positions are not well aligned with those of a majority of constituents. This is especially true in elections for the Senate, in which issues are likely to play a greater role than in House elections. WEAK OPPONENTS Another advantage for incumbents, particularly in the House, is that they are likely to face weak opponents.24 In part because the advantages of incumbency scare off potentially effective opponents, those individuals who do run are usually not well known or well qualified and lack experience and organizational and financial backing.25 The lack of adequate campaign funds is a special burden because challengers need money to compensate for the “free” recognition incumbents receive from their advertising and credit claiming.26 367  CAMPAIGN SPENDING It costs a great deal of money to elect a Congress. In the 11.1 2009–2010 election cycle, congressional candidates and supporting party committees spent more than $2 billion to contest 435 House and 33 Senate seats. The average winner in the House spent about $1.4 million while the average Senate winner spent 11.2 $9.8 million.27 Challengers have to raise large sums if they hope to defeat an incumbent, and the more they spend, the more votes they receive. Money buys them name recognition and 11.3 a chance to be heard. Incumbents, by contrast, already have high levels of recognition among their constituents and benefit less (but still benefit) from campaign spending; what matters most is how much their opponents spend. (In contests for open seats, as discussed later, the candidate who spends the most usually wins.28) In the end, how- 11.4 ever, challengers, especially those for House seats, are usually substantially outspent by incumbents. In both the Senate and House races in 2010, the typical incumbent outspent the typical challenger by a ratio of 2 to 1.29 11.5 The candidate spending the most money usually wins—but not always. In the 2010 Senate race in Connecticut, Republican Linda McMahon, the former chief executive of World Wrestling Entertainment, lost after spending about $47 million, most from her own pocket. Obviously, prolific spending in a campaign is no guarantee of success. The Role of Party Identification At the base of every electoral coalition are the members of the candidate’s party in the constituency. Most members of Congress represent constituencies in which their party is in the clear majority, giving incumbents yet another advantage. Most people identify with a party, and most party identifiers reliably vote for their party’s candidates. Indeed, about 90 percent of voters who identify with a party vote for the House candidates of their party. State legislatures have eagerly employed advances in technology to draw the boundaries of House districts so that there is a safe majority for one party. In addi- tion, it is now more common for people to live in communities where their neighbors are likely to have political and other attitudes that are similar to their own,30 reducing the basis for party competition. Defeating Incumbents In light of the advantages of incumbents, it is reasonable to ask why anyone challenges them at all. One of the main reasons is simply that challengers are often naïve about their chances of winning. Because few have money for expensive polls, they rely on friends and local party leaders, who often tell them what they want to hear. Sometimes challengers receive some unexpected help. An incumbent tarnished by scandal or corruption becomes instantly vulnerable. Clearly, voters do take out their anger at the polls. In a close election, negative publicity can turn victory into defeat.31 Incumbents may also lose many of their supporters if the boundaries of their districts change. After a federal census, which occurs every 10 years, Congress reap- portions its membership. States that have gained significantly in population will be given more House seats; states that have lost substantial population will lose one or more of their seats. The state legislatures must then redraw their states’ district lines; one incumbent may be moved into another’s district, where the two must battle for one seat.32 A state party in the majority is more likely to move two of the opposi- tion party’s representatives into a single district than two of its own. Or it might split the district of an incumbent of the minority party to make that district more competitive. Finally, major political tidal waves occasionally roll across the country, leaving defeated incumbents in their wake. One such wave occurred in 1994, when the pub- lic mood turned especially sour and voters took out their frustration on Democratic 368 incumbents, defeating two in the Senate and 34 in the House. In 2006, the tide reversed as 6 Republican senators and 23 Republican representatives lost their seats. In 11.1 2010, it was again the Republicans’ turn, as they defeated 2 Democratic senators and 52 Democratic representatives in the general election. 11.2 Open Seats When an incumbent is not running for reelection, and the seat is open, there is greater 11.3 likelihood of competition. If the party balance in a constituency is such that either party has a chance of winning, each side may offer a strong candidate with name rec- ognition among the voters or enough money to establish name recognition. Most of 11.4 the turnover in the membership of Congress results from vacated seats. Stability and Change 11.5 Because incumbents usually win reelection, there is some stability in the membership of Congress. This stability allows representatives and senators to gain some expertise in dealing with complex questions of public policy. At the same time, it also may insulate them from the winds of political change. Safe seats make it more difficult for citizens to “send a message to Washington” with their votes. Particularly in the House, it takes a large shift in votes to affect the outcomes of most elections. To increase turnover in the membership of Congress, some reformers have proposed term limitations for represen- tatives and senators33 (see “You Are the Policymaker: Should We Impose Term Limits on Members of Congress?”). You Are the Policymaker Should We Impose Term Limits on Members of Congress? n the late 1980s, many reformers were concerned argue, there is plenty of new blood in the legislature: I that the incumbency advantage enjoyed by legisla- tors created, in effect, lifetime tenure, which served as at the beginning of the 113th Congress (in 2013), most members of the House and Senate had served less than a roadblock to change and encouraged ethics abuses. To 10 years in Congress. Moreover, changes in the party increase turnover among legislators, these reformers pro- make-up of the House appear to reflect changes in voter posed term limitations, generally restricting representa- preferences for public policy.* tives to 6 or 12 consecutive years in office. Proponents of term limits suffered two setbacks The movement to limit the terms of legislators in 1995 when Congress failed to pass a constitutional spread rapidly across the country. Within a few years, amendment on term limitations (it also failed in 1997) and 23 states enacted term limitations for members of their when the Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. et al. state legislatures. The House Republicans made term v. Thornton et al., decided that state-imposed term limits limits for Congress part of their Contract with America in on members of Congress were unconstitutional. the 1994 election. Yet changing the terms of members of Many Americans support a constitutional amend- Congress requires changing the Constitution, which is dif- ment to impose term limitations on members of ficult to do, and many members of Congress have fought Congress. At the same time, most seem comfortable term limitations fiercely. with their own representatives and senators and appear Opponents of term limitations object to the loss of content to reelect them again and again. experienced legislators who know the issues and the What do you think? If you were a policymaker, process of legislation and of the American people’s abil- would you favor or oppose term limits? Why? What ity to vote for whomever they please. In addition, they action, if any, would you take? *Suzanna De Boef and James A. Stimson, “The Dynamic Structure of Congressional Elections,” Journal of Politics 57 (August 1995): 630–48. 369 11.1 bicameral legislature How Congress Is Organized to A legislature divided into two houses. The U.S. Congress and all state legislatures except Nebraska’s are Make Policy bicameral. 11.2 Compare and contrast the House and Senate, and describe the roles of congressional 11.3 leaders, committees, caucuses, and staff. 11.3 f all the senators’ and representatives’ roles—including politician, fund 11.4 O raiser, and constituency representative—making policy is the most difficult. Congress is a collection of generalists trying to make policy on specialized topics. Members are short on time and specific expertise. As generalists on most subjects, they are surrounded by people who know (or claim to know) more than they do—lobbyists, agency administrators, even their own staffs. Even if they had 11.5 time to study all the issues thoroughly, making wise national policy would be difficult. If economists disagree about policies to fight unemployment, how are legislators to know which policies may work better than others? Thus, the generalists must organize Congress to help them make specialized decisions. The Founders gave Congress’s orga- nization just a hint of specialization when they split it into the House and the Senate. American Bicameralism A bicameral legislature is a legislature divided into two houses. The U.S. Congress is bicameral, as is every American state legislature except Nebraska’s, which has one house (unicameral). Our bicameral Congress is the result of the Connecticut Compromise at the Constitutional Convention. Each state is guaranteed 2 sena- tors, and the number of representatives a state has is determined by its population (California has 53 representatives; Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have just 1 each). By creating a bicameral Congress, the Constitution set up yet another check and balance. No bill can be passed unless both House and Senate agree on it; each body can thus veto the policies of the other. Table 11.2 shows some of the basic differences between the two houses. TABLE 11.2 HOUSE VERSUS SENATE: SOME KEY DIFFERENCES House of Characteristic Representatives Senate Constitutional powers Must initiate all revenue bills Must give “advice and consent” Must pass all articles of to many presidential nominations impeachment Must approve treaties Tries impeached officials Membership 435 members 100 members Term of office 2 years 6 years Constituencies Usually smaller Usually larger Centralization of power More centralized; Less centralized; stronger leadership weaker leadership Political prestige Less prestige More prestige Role in policymaking More influential on budget; More influential on foreign affairs; more specialized less specialized Turnover Small Moderate Role of seniority More important in determining Less important in determining power power Procedures Limited debate; limits on floor Unlimited debate amendments allowed 370 THE HOUSE More than four times as large as the Senate, the House is also more House Rules Committee institutionalized—that is, more centralized, more hierarchical, and more disciplined.34 The committee in the House of 11.1 Party loyalty to leadership and party-line voting are more common in the House than Representatives that reviews most in the Senate. Partly because there are more members, leaders in the House do more bills coming from a House committee before they go to the full House. leading than do leaders in the Senate. First-term House members have less power 11.2 than senior representatives; they are more likely than first-term senators to be just seen filibuster and not heard.35 A strategy unique to the Senate Both the House and the Senate set their own agendas. Both use committees, whereby opponents of a piece of leg- 11.3 which we will examine shortly, to winnow down the thousands of bills introduced. One islation use their right to unlimited institution unique to the House, however, plays a key role in agenda setting: the House debate to prevent the Senate from ever voting on a bill. Sixty members Rules Committee. This committee reviews most bills coming from a House com- present and voting can halt a filibuster. 11.4 mittee before they go to the full House. Performing a traffic cop function, the Rules Committee gives each bill a “rule,” which schedules the bill on the calendar, allots time for debate, and sometimes even specifies what kind of amendments may be offered. 11.5 Today, the committee usually brings legislation to the floor under rules that limit or prohibit amendments and thus the opportunities for the minority to propose changes. The Rules Committee is generally responsive to the House leadership, in part because the Speaker of the House now appoints the committee’s members. THE SENATE The Constitution’s framers thought the Senate would protect elite interests, counteracting tendencies of the House to protect the interests of the masses. They gave the House power to initiate all revenue bills and to impeach officials; they gave the Senate power to ratify all treaties, to confirm important presidential nomina- tions (including nominations to the Supreme Court), and to try impeached officials. Despite the Framers’ expectations, history shows that when the same party controls both chambers, the Senate is just as liberal as—and perhaps more liberal than—the House.36 The real differences between the bodies lie in the Senate’s organization and decentralized power. Smaller than the House, the Senate is also less disciplined and less centralized. Today’s senators are more nearly equal in power than representatives are. Even incom- ing senators sometimes get top committee assignments; they may even become chairs of key subcommittees. Committees and party leadership are important in determining the Senate’s legis- lative agenda, just as they are in the House. Party leaders do for Senate scheduling what the Rules Committee does in the House. One activity unique to the Senate is the filibuster. This is a tactic by which oppo- nents of a bill use their right to unlimited debate as a way to prevent the Senate from ever voting on a bill. Unlike their fellow legislators in the House, once senators have the floor in a debate, tradition holds that they can talk as long as they wish. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina once held forth for 24 hours and 18 minutes opposing a civil rights bill in 1957. Working together, then, like-minded senators can practically debate forever, tying up the legislative agenda until the proponents of a bill finally give up their battle. In essence, they literally talk the bill to death. The power of the filibuster is not absolute, however. Sixty members present and voting can halt a filibuster by voting for cloture on debate. However, many senators are reluctant to vote for cloture for fear of setting a precedent to be used against them when they want to filibuster. At its core, the filibuster raises profound questions about American democracy because it is used by a minority, sometimes a minority of one, to defeat a majority. Southern senators once used filibusters to prevent the passage of civil rights legisla- tion.37 More recently, the opponents of all types of legislation have used them. Since the 1990s, filibusters have become the weapon of first resort for even the most trivial matters. Each senator has at least six opportunities to filibuster a single bill, and these opportunities can be used one after another. In addition, the tactical uses of a filibuster have expanded. A senator might threaten to filibuster an unrelated measure in order to gain concessions on a bill he or she opposes. 371  Speaker of the House If the minority is blocking the majority, why does the majority not change the 11.1 An office mandated by the rules to prevent filibuster? The answer is twofold. First, changing the rules requires Constitution. The Speaker is cho- 67 votes. It is always difficult to obtain the agreement of two-thirds of the Senate on sen in practice by the majority party, a controversial matter. Second, every senator knows that he or she might be in the has both formal and informal pow- 11.2 ers, and is second in line to succeed minority on an issue at some time. A filibuster gives senators who are in the minority a to the presidency should that office powerful weapon for defending their (or their constituents’) interests. Americans today become vacant. commonly complain about gridlock in Congress. Nevertheless, senators have decided 11.3 that they are more concerned with allowing senators to block legislation they oppose than with expediting the passage of legislation a majority favors. 11.4 Why It Matters to You 11.5 The Filibuster Without the filibuster, the majority would be more likely to win and gridlock would lessen. However, minority interests would be more likely to lose. Congressional Leadership Leading 100 senators or 435 representatives in Congress—each jealous of his or her own power and responsible to no higher power than the constituency—is no easy task. Few members of Congress consider themselves followers. Much of the leadership in Congress is really party leadership. There are a few formal posts whose occupants are chosen by nonparty procedures, but those who have the real power in the congressional hierarchy are those whose party put them there. THE HOUSE The Speaker of the House is the most important leader in the House of Representatives. The Speaker holds the only legislative office mandated by the Constitution. In practice, the majority party selects the Speaker. Before each Congress begins, the majority party presents its candidate for Speaker, who— because this person attracts the unanimous support of the majority party—is a shoo-in. Typically, the Speaker is a senior member of the party. John Boehner of Ohio, who has served in Congress since 1991, was elected Speaker in 2011. The Speaker is also two heartbeats away from the presidency, being second in line (after the vice president) to succeed a president who resigns, dies in office, or is convicted after impeachment. Years ago, the Speaker was king of the congressional mountain. Autocrats such as “Uncle Joe Cannon” and “Czar Reed” ran the House like a fiefdom. A great revolt in 1910 whittled down the Speaker’s powers and gave some of them to committees, but six decades later, members of the House restored some of the Speaker’s powers. Today, the Speaker does the following: Presides over the House when it is in session Plays a major role in making committee assignments, which are coveted by all members to ensure their electoral advantage Appoints or plays a key role in appointing the party’s legislative leaders and the party leadership staff Exercises substantial control over which bills get assigned to which committees In addition to these formal powers, the Speaker has a great deal of informal clout inside and outside Congress. When the Speaker’s party differs from the president’s party, as it frequently does, the Speaker is often a national spokesper- son for the party. The bank of microphones in front of the Speaker of the House is a commonplace feature of the evening news. A good Speaker also knows the 372 members well—including their past improprieties, the ambitions they harbor, and majority leader the pressures they feel. The principal partisan ally of the 11.1 Leadership in the House, however, is not a one-person show. The Speaker’s princi- Speaker of the House, or the party’s pal partisan ally is the majority leader—a job that has been the main stepping-stone to manager in the Senate. The major- ity leader is responsible for sched- the Speaker’s role. The majority leader is elected by his or her party and is responsible 11.2 uling bills, influencing committee for scheduling bills and rounding up votes on behalf of the party’s position on legisla- assignments, and rounding up votes tion. The current majority leader is Republican Eric Cantor of Virginia. Working with on behalf of the party’s legislative the majority leader are the party’s whips, who carry the word to party troops, count- positions. 11.3 ing votes before they are cast and leaning on waverers whose votes are crucial to a bill. Party whips also report the views and complaints of the party rank and file back to the whips Party leaders who work with the leadership. majority leader or minority leader to 11.4 The minority party is also organized, poised to take over the Speakership and other count votes beforehand and lean on key posts if it should win a majority in the House. It has a minority leader (currently waverers whose votes are crucial to a bill favored by the party. Nancy Pelosi of California) and party whips who operate much like their counterparts 11.5 in the majority party. minority leader The principal leader of the minority THE SENATE The vice president’s only constitutionally defined job is to serve as party in the House of Representatives president of the Senate. However, vice presidents usually slight their senatorial chores, or in the Senate. except in the rare case when their vote can break a tie. Modern vice presidents are active in representing the president’s views to senators, however. It is the Senate majority leader—currently Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada— who, aided by the majority whip, serves as the workhorse of the party, corralling votes, scheduling floor action, and influencing committee assignments. The majority lead- er’s counterpart in the opposition, the minority leader—currently Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—has similar responsibilities and is supported by the minority whip. Power is widely dispersed in the contemporary Senate. Therefore, party leaders must appeal broadly for support, often speaking to the country directly or indirectly over television. CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP IN PERSPECTIVE Despite their stature and power, congressional leaders cannot always move their troops. Power in both houses of Congress, but especially the Senate, is decentralized. Leaders are elected by their party members and must remain responsive to them. Except in the most egregious cases (which rarely arise), leaders cannot administer severe punishments to those who do not support the party’s stand, and no one expects members to vote against their con- stituents’ interests. Senator Robert Dole nicely summed up the leader’s situation when he once dubbed himself the “Majority Pleader.” John Boehner of Ohio was elected Speaker in 2011. He is the most powerful member of the House of Representatives. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada leads the Democrats in the Senate, which makes him the most powerful member of that body. Nevertheless, in the decentralized power structure of the upper chamber, even he must work and negotiate with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. 373  standing committees 11.1 Separate subject-matter committees Why It Matters to You in each house of Congress that handle bills in different policy areas. Party Strength 11.2 If congressional parties are strong, they can enforce strict party loyalty and thus joint committees Congressional committees on a few are better able to keep their promises to voters. At the same time, strict party loy- subject-matter areas with membership alty makes it more difficult for members of Congress to break from the party line 11.3 drawn from both houses. to represent their constituents’ special needs and interests. conference committees 11.4 Congressional committees formed when the Senate and the House pass a Nevertheless, party leadership, at least in the House, has been more effective particular bill in different forms. Party in recent years. Greater policy agreement within each party and greater diff er- leadership appoints members from ences between the parties have encouraged members to delegate power to their each house to iron out the differences 11.5 and bring back a single bill. leaders. This delegation has made it easier for the Speaker to exercise his or her prerogatives regarding the assignment of bills and members to committees, the select committees rules under which the House considers legislation on the floor, and the use of an Congressional committees appointed expanded whip system—and thus better able to advance an agenda that reflects for a specific purpose, such as the party preferences.38 Watergate investigation. The Committees and Subcommittees Will Rogers, the famous Oklahoman humorist, once remarked that “outside of traffic, there is nothing that has held this country back as much as committees.” Members of the Senate and the House would apparently disagree. Most of the real work of Congress goes on in committees, and committees dominate congressional policymaking in all its stages. Committees regularly hold hearings to investigate problems and possible wrong- doing and to oversee the executive branch. Most of all, they control the congressional agenda and guide legislation from its introduction to its send-off to the president for his signature. We can group committees into four types, the first of which is by far the most important. 1. Standing committees handle bills in different policy areas (see Table 11.3). Each house of Congress has its own standing committees. In Congress today, the typical representative serves on two committees and four subcommittees on those committees (subcommittees are smaller units of a committee created out of the committee membership); senators average three committees and seven subcommittees. 2. Joint committees exist in a few policy areas, such as the economy and taxation, and draw their membership from both the Senate and the House. 3. Conference committees are formed when the Senate and the House pass different versions of the same bill (which they typically do). Appointed by the party leadership, a conference committee consists of members of each house chosen to iron out Senate and House differences and to report back a compro- mise bill. 4. Select committees may be temporary or permanent and usually have a focused responsibility. The House and Senate each have a permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for example. In 2011, a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction was given responsibility for developing a plan to cut the deficit. THE COMMITTEES AT WORK: LEGISLATION With more than 9,000 bills submitted by members in the course of a 2-year period, some winnowing is essential. Every bill 374 TABLE 11.3 STANDING COMMITTEES IN THE SENATE AND IN THE HOUSE legislative oversight Congress’s monitoring of the bureauc- 11.1 racy and its administration of policy, Senate Committees House Committees performed mainly through hearings. Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Agriculture 11.2 Appropriations Appropriations Armed Services Armed Services Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Budget 11.3 Budget Education and the Workforce Commerce, Science, and Transportation Energy and Commerce Energy and Natural Resources Ethics 11.4 Environment and Public Works Financial Services Finance Foreign Affairs Foreign Relations Homeland Security 11.5 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions House Administration Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Judiciary Judiciary Natural Resources Rules and Administration Oversight and Government Reform Small Business and Entrepreneurship Rules Veterans’ Affairs Science and Technology Small Business Transportation and Infrastructure Veterans’ Affairs Ways and Means goes to a standing committee, which has virtually the power of life and death over it. The whole House or Senate usually considers only bills that obtain a favorable committee report. A new bill that the Speaker sends to a committee typically goes directly to a sub- committee, which can hold hearings on the bill. Sizable committee and subcommittee staffs conduct research, line up witnesses for hearings, and write and rewrite bills. Committees and their subcommittees produce reports on proposed legislation. A committee’s most important output, however, is the “marked-up” (rewritten) bill itself, which it submits to the full House or Senate for debate and voting. The work of committees does not stop when the bill leaves the committee room. Members of the committee usually serve as “floor managers” of the bill, helping party leaders hustle votes for it. They are also the “cue givers” to whom other members turn for advice.39 When the Senate and House pass different versions of the same bill, some committee members serve on the conference committee. THE COMMITTEES AT WORK: OVERSIGHT The committees and subcommittees do not leave the scene even after legislation passes. They stay busy in legislative oversight , the process of monitoring the executive branch bureaucracy and its administration of policies, most of which Congress established by passing bills. Committees handle oversight mainly through hearings. When an agency wants a bigger budget, the relevant committee reviews its current budget. Even if no budg- etary issues are involved, members of committees constantly monitor how the bureaucracy is implementing a law. Agency heads and even cabinet secretaries testify, bringing graphs, charts, and data on the progress they have made and the problems they face. Committee staffs and committee members grill agency heads about par- ticular problems. For example, a member may ask a Small Business Administration 375  official why constituents who are applying for loans get the runaround; another 11.1 committee might focus on complaints from states regarding the No Child Left Behind law. In short, through oversight, Congress can pressure agencies and, in extreme cases, cut their budgets in order to secure compliance with congressional 11.2 wishes.40 Oversight also provides an opportunity to refine existing policies, such as reimbursements under Medicare, or respond to new problems, such as regulations regarding offshore drilling for oil. 11.3 Congress keeps tabs on more routine activities of the executive branch through its committee staff members. These members have specialized expertise in the fields and agencies that their committees oversee and maintain an extensive network of formal and informal contacts with the bureaucracy. By reading the voluminous 11.4 reports that Congress requires of the executive branch and by receiving information from numerous sources—agencies, complaining citizens, members of Congress and their personal staff, state and local officials, interest groups, and professional organiza- 11.5 tions—staff members can keep track of the implementation of public policy.41 Congressional oversight grew as the size and complexity of the national govern- ment grew in the 1960s and in response to numerous charges that the executive branch had become too powerful. The tight budgets of recent years have provided additional incentives for oversight, as members of Congress have sought to protect programs they favor from budget cuts and to get more value for the tax dollars spent on them. As the publicity value of receiving credit for controlling governmental spending has increased, so has the number of representatives and senators interested in oversight.42 Nevertheless, members of Congress have many competing responsibilities, and there are few political payoffs for carefully watching a government agency to see whether it is implementing policy properly. It is difficult to go to voters and say, “Vote for me. I oversaw the routine handling of road building.” Because of this lack of incen- tives, problems may be overlooked until it is too late to do much about them. Despite clear evidence of fundamental problems in the operations and management of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its response to the four hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004, when Katrina hit the next year, Congress had still not held oversight hearings. Similarly, Congress missed the fact that various agencies with responsibility for overseeing the banking industry were negligent in identifying looming problems in the financial sector that led to the recession of 2008–2009. Another constraint on effective oversight is the fragmentation of committee juris- dictions, which inhibits Congress from taking a comprehensive view of complex issue areas. For example, a large number of committees and subcommittees have responsibil- ity for oversight over homeland security (see Table 11.4). Committees resist giving up Most of the work of Congress occurs in committees. Here the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction holds a hearing on the budget. 376 TABLE 11.4 SHARING OVERSIGHT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 11.1 Although the House created a separate Homeland Security Committee in 2003, many other committees share jurisdiction over parts of the sprawling department and its amalgam of agencies. This table is a sampling of the fragmentation. 11.2 Homeland Security’s Other Committees That Share Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Border and port security Judiciary: Immigration policy and interior enforcement 11.3 Agriculture: Animal and plant diseases Customs Ways and Means: Customs revenue Homeland security information Government Reform: Government-wide information 11.4 management Terrorism preparedness and Armed Services: Any military response to terrorism domestic response Financial Services: Terrorist financing 11.5 Select Intelligence: Intelligence-related activities at all agencies Transportation and Infrastructure: Emergency management and Coast Guard Research and development Science and Technology: Some research and development at DHS Transportation security Transportation and Infrastructure: Transportation safety, including the Federal Aviation Administration SOURCE: CQ Weekly, December 27, 2010, p. 2901. jurisdiction over parts of the bureaucracy, even when it is reorganized, as was the case with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. In addition, the majority party largely determines if and when a committee will hold hearings. When the president’s party has a majority in a house of Congress, that chamber is generally not aggressive in overseeing the administration because it does not wish to embarrass the president. Democrats were critical of what they regarded as timid Republican oversight of the nation’s intelligence establishment and President George W. Bush’s planning and implementation of the aftermath of the war in Iraq, including the treatment of prisoners. Nevertheless, the president’s partisans resisted holding the White House accountable, fearing that the Democrats would use hearings to discredit Bush. Critics charged that the failure to discern and make explicit the true costs of pol- icy initiatives—from tax cuts to Medicare prescription drugs to the war in Iraq—made it impossible for a realistic cost–benefit analysis to enter the calculus before Congress approved the policies.43 Once the Democrats gained majorities in Congress in the 2006 elections, the number of oversight hearings increased substantially. Significantly, the number diminished again after the election of Democrat Barack Obama but then increased in the House after the Republicans won a majority there in the 2010 elections. Why It Matters to You Inconsistent Oversight Overseeing the executive branch is a major responsibility of Congress, yet the inconsistent performance in this area means that Congress is less likely either to anticipate or address important problems. GETTING ON A COMMITTEE One of the primary objectives of an incoming mem- ber of Congress is getting on the right committee. A new member of the House from Iowa would probably prefer to be on the Agriculture Committee while a freshman 377  senator from New York might seek membership on the Banking, Housing, and Urban committee chairs 11.1 The most important influencers of the Affairs Committee. Members seek committees that will help them achieve three congressional agenda. They play dom- goals: reelection, influence in Congress, and the opportunity to make policy in areas inant roles in scheduling hearings, hir- they think are important.44 ing staff, appointing subcommittees, 11.2 Just after their election, new members communicate their committee preferences and managing committee bills when they are brought before the full house. to their party’s congressional leaders and members of their state delegation. Every committee includes members from both parties, but a majority of each committee’s 11.3 seniority system members (except for the House Ethics Committee), as well as its chair, come from the A simple rule for picking committee majority party in the chamber. Each party in each house has a slightly different way of chairs, in effect until the 1970s. The picking its committee members. Party leaders almost always play a key role. member who had served on the com- Those who have supported the leadership are favored in the committee selection 11.4 mittee the longest and whose party controlled the chamber became chair, process, but generally the parties try to grant members’ requests for committee assign- regardless of party loyalty, mental ments whenever possible. They want their members to please their constituents (being state, or competence. on the right committee should help them represent their constituency more effectively 11.5 and reinforce their ability to engage in credit claiming) and to develop expertise in an area of policy. The parties also try to apportion the influence that comes with com- mittee membership among the state delegations in order to accord representation to diverse components of the party.45 COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND THE SENIORITY SYSTEM If committees are the most important influencers of the congressional agenda, committee chairs are the most important influencers of the committee agenda. Committee chairs play dominant roles in scheduling hearings, hiring staff, appointing subcommittees, and managing committee bills when they are brought before the full house. Until the 1970s, there was a simple way of picking committee chairs: the seniority system. If committee members had served on their committee longest and their party controlled the chamber, they got to be chairs—regardless of their party loyalty, mental state, or competence. The chairs were so powerful for most of the twentieth century that they could bully members or bottle up legislation at any time—and with almost certain knowledge that they would be chairs for the rest of their electoral life. The more independent com- mittee chairs are and the more power they have, the more difficult it may be to make coherent policy. Independent and powerful committee chairs can represent another obstacle to overcome in the complex legislative process. In the 1970s, younger members of Congress revolted, and as a result both parties in both branches permitted members to vote on committee chairs. Today seniority remains the general rule for selecting chairs, especially in the Senate, but there are plenty of exceptions. In addition, new rules have limited both committee and subcommittee chairs to three consecutive two-year terms as chair, and committee chairs have lost the power to cast proxy votes for those committee members not in attendance. In general, committee chairs are not as powerful as they were before the reform era. The party leadership in the House has much more control over legislation, often giving com- mittees deadlines for reporting legislation and at times even bypassing committees for priority legislation. Why It Matters to You The Committee System The committee system in Congress is highly decentralized. As a result, it is open to the appeals of a wide range of “special” interests, especially those represented by highly paid lobbyists. If Congress were more centralized and only those inter- ests cleared by the elected leadership received a hearing, special interests might be constrained. However, there is also a danger that only the interests reflecting the views of the leadership would be heard. 378  Caucuses: The Informal Organization of Congress caucus (congressional) A group of members of Congress 11.1 Although the formal organization of Congress consists of its party leadership and its sharing some interest or characteristic. committee structures, the informal organization of Congress is also important. Informal Many are composed of members from networks of trust and mutual interest have long sprung from numerous sources, includ- both parties and from both houses. ing friendship, ideology, and geography. 11.2 Lately, the informal organization of Congress has been dominated by a growing number of caucuses. In this context, a caucus is a group of members of Congress who share some interest or characteristic. There are nearly 500 caucuses, most of 11.3 them containing members from both parties and some containing members from both the House and the Senate. The goal of all caucuses is to promote the interests around which they are formed. Caucuses press for committees to hold hearings, push 11.4 particular legislation, and pull together votes on bills they favor. They are somewhat like interest groups but with a difference: their members are members of Congress, not petitioners to Congress on the outside looking in. Thus caucuses—interest groups 11.5 within Congress—are nicely situated to pack more punch.46 This explosion of informal groups in Congress has made the representation of interests in Congress a more direct process. Some caucuses, such as the Black Caucus, the Caucus for Women’s Issues, and the Hispanic Caucus, focus on advancing the interests of demographic groups. Others, such as the Sunbelt Caucus, are based on regional groupings. Still others, such as the Republican Study Committee, are ideological groupings. Many caucuses are based on economic interests. For example, the Congressional Bourbon Caucus advocates for the bourbon industry by fighting proposals like a tax increase on liquor, while the Congressional Gaming Caucus deals with issues like reinvigorating the tourism industry and making sure regulations for Internet gambling are fair. Other caucuses focus, for instance, on health issues or on foreign policy matters dealing with specific countries. Congressional Staff As we discussed earlier, members of Congress are overwhelmed with responsibilities. It is virtually impossible to master the details of the hundreds of bills on which they must make decisions each year or to prepare their own legislation. They need help to meet their obligations, so they turn to their staff. The proliferation of congressional caucuses gives member of Congress an informal yet powerful means of shaping policy. Composed of legislative insiders, caucuses—such as the Hispanic Caucus—exert a much greater influence on policymaking than most citizen-based interest groups can. 379  PERSONAL STAFF Most staff members work in the personal offices of individual 11.1 members of Congress. The average representative has 17 assistants and the aver- age senator has 40. In total, more than 11,000 individuals serve on the personal staff s of members of Congress. (Another 400 serve the congressional leaders.) In 11.2 the summer, about 4,000 interns also work in members’ offi ces on Capitol Hill (see “Young People and Politics: Are Opportunities to Intern Biased in Favor of the Wealthy?”). 11.3 Most of these staffers spend their time on casework, providing services to constituents. They answer mail, communicate the member’s views to voters, and help constituents solve problems. Nearly one-half of these House staffers and nearly one-third of the Senate personal staff work in members’ offices in their 11.4 constituencies, not in Washington. This makes it easier for people to make contact with the staff. Other personal staff help members of Congress with legislative func- tions, including drafting legislation, meeting with lobbyists and administrators, 11.5 negotiating agreements on behalf of their bosses, writing questions to ask wit- nesses at committee hearings, summarizing bills, and briefing legislators. Senators, who must cover a wider range of committee assignments than members of the House, are especially dependent on staff. Indeed, members of both houses are now more likely to deal with each other through staff intermediaries than through per- sonal interactions. COMMITTEE STAFF The committees of the House and Senate employ another 2,000 or so staff members. These staffers organize hearings, research legislative options, draft committee reports on bills, write legislation, and, as we have seen, keep tabs on the activities of the executive branch. Committee staff members often possess high Young People & Politics Are Opportunities to Intern Biased in Favor of the Wealthy? any college students spend their summers work- other programs provide some financial help, but most M ing to pay for their studies during the rest of the year. Others, in contrast, serve as interns. Many of the interns are on their own. As internships become increasingly important to interns have parents who support them financially dur- career success, the concern has been raised that they ing the summer. According to some experts, the focus may be creating a class system discriminating against on internships as a tool for professional success has students from less affluent families who must turn down never been greater, and about 80 percent of graduating unpaid internships to earn money for college expenses. college seniors have done a paid or unpaid internship. To the extent that Washington internships serve as a pipe- To some, an internship is an essential stepping-stone to line for people to become policymakers in the nation’s career success. capital, critics fear that over time internships, like the ris- Because Washington internships are in high ing costs of college tuition, will mean fewer working-class demand, in most cases they do not pay, or they pay and even middle-class voices in high-level policy debates. very little. The White House does not pay the interns who work there during the summer; in most cases the CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS Supreme Court does not pay its undergraduate interns; and a vast majority of congressional offices do not pay 1. Is the internship system in Washington likely the 4,000 summer interns who work on Capitol Hill, to bias policymaking in the future? although a few, mostly on the Senate side, provide a lim- 2. Should Congress appropriate funds so ited stipend. To make matters worse, Washington is an internships are more available to students expensive place to live. In some cases, universities or from less wealthy backgrounds? SOURCE: Jennifer 8. Lee, “Crucial Unpaid Internships Increasingly Separate the Haves from the Have-Nots,” New York Times, August 10, 2004. 380 levels of expertise and can become very influential in policymaking. As a result, lob- bill byists spend a lot of time cultivating these staffers both to obtain information about A proposed law, drafted in legal 11.1 likely legislative actions and to plant ideas for legislation. language. Anyone can draft a bill, but only a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate can for- STAFF AGENCIES Finally, Congress has three important staff agencies that aid it mally submit a bill for consideration. 11.2 in its work. The first is the Congressional Research Service (CRS), administered by the Library of Congress and composed of researchers, many with advanced degrees and highly developed expertise. Each year it responds to more than 250,000 congressional