I. Introduction: Enacting Medicare

The idea of universal medical insurance kicked around for a long time in the United States but made little headway before the 1960s. Advocates of a federal medical insurance program began to gain ground during the 1950s when they shifted their agenda from insurance coverage for everyone to insurance
coverage for the elderly. 

The problems of the elderly--extensive poverty, poor nutrition, and lack of access to medical care--were beginning to gain the attention of the media, university researchers, the public, and many politicians, particularly members of Congress. This development was, in part, a result of the rapid growth in the size of the elderly population and, in part, the result of lobbying by newly formed interest groups. 

A bill providing medical insurance for those receiving Social Security was introduced in Congress in 1957 by Democratic Representative Aime Forand of Rhode Island. Polls showed that a substantial majority of the public favored the Forand bill. Labor unions and senior citizen organizations lobbied hard for the bill and generated a flood of mail to congressional offices. Liberal Democratic members of Congress eagerly responded and pressed for passage.

Once again, however, the formidable combination of the Republican party, southern Democrats, and the AMA (now joined by the American Dental Association, the American Hospital Association, and the American Nursing Association) blocked the bill. A similar medicare bill introduced in 1964 was also defeated.

In 1964, however, Democrat Lyndon Johnson, who made Medicare a central theme of his presidential campaign, won 61 percent of the popular vote and 90 percent of the electoral vote. Democrats also won a sweeping victory in the House, adding 38 seats to their majority, and gaining two seats in the Senate. The following year, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law.

This story shows that, at a time when there is a great deal of grumbling about the ineffectiveness of Congress, that Congress is sometimes capable of responding to the wishes of the people and of fashioning effective and coherent national policies. It also shows, however, how many barriers exist to this kind of action, particularly the peculiarities of congressional organization and procedures, and the substantial influence of interest groups.


II. The Structural Foundations of Congress

A. Constitutional Design

The framers were ambivalent about democracy. Although they fashioned a constitutional system designed to prevent tyranny and to protect personal freedom, they placed roadblocks in the way of popular sovereignty (particularly majority rule) and political equality. We can see this ambivalence at work in their design of the legislative branch of government.

The framers divided the legislative branch into two houses or chambers. Single-house legislative bodies, they believed, would be prone to rash action. Representation in the House of Representatives was apportioned on the basis of population while each state was represented equally in the Senate.

Members of the House would serve for two year terms. Senate terms were set at six years, with one third of the seats up for election each election cycle. The Constitution called for the election of senators, not by the people but by state
legislatures. Again, the objective was to insulate one house of Congress from popular pressures and to make it a seat of deliberation and reflection.

The Founders gave the Congress several specific powers. Those powers specifically listed in the Constitution are called enumerated powers. A constitutional provision known as the elastic clause enables Congress to legislate in areas not mentioned in the Constitution (or imagined by the framers). This clause gives Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out the enumerated powers.

Although the framers wanted to create an energetic government with a strong legislative branch, they also wanted to limit congressional power. The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, titles of nobility, and the suspension of the right of habeas corpus. Subsequently, the framers included several other limitations on the power of Congress in the Bill of Rights.

The framers created separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches and gave each a role to play in the activities of the other branches so as to further guard against tyranny. For example, the Constitution specifies that Congress must share its legislative power with both the president, who must sign congressional bills before they can become law, and the federal courts, which interpret the meaning of laws. Congress shares executive power by virtue of its responsibilities for approving or disapproving presidential nominees and treaties, making the federal budget, and legislating the organization of the legislative branch.

B. The Historic Development of Congress

These constitutional rules remain important in shaping how Congress is organized and how it operates, but so are other structural, political, and governmental factors. Initially, Congress was without committees. Because both the House and Senate were small bodies, neither needed strong leadership to manage its business. Each house considered bills, meeting as a committee of the whole, with all members participating. Members essentially made up the rules as they went along.

The issues that they dealt with were important, but the flow of business was manageable, because the federal government did not play a large role in American life. Though they were skilled and experienced politicians, few members saw service in Congress as a lifelong career. Most expected to return to private life or to politics in their home states.

Over the years Congress changed as the United States grew from a small agricultural and trading nation on the periphery of the world to an urban, industrialized superpower. The most obvious change in Congress has been its growth in size.

Another important change is that the federal government plays a larger role in American life now than the framers envisioned. This development is the result of several structural changes in America, including urbanization, population growth, industrialization, new forms of business organization, and the nation's emergence as a superpower.

These changes have generated a wide range of problems and opportunities that seem to require a vigorous and interventionist government. The growth of government forced Congress to take on more responsibilities.

As Congress grew in size and considered ever more complex issues, it became more institutionalized, that is, it became more structured, organized, regularized, and rule-bound. Formal ways of doing things replaced informal arrangements. Legislative business today is done mainly in specialized committees and subcommittees by subject-matter specialists and professional staff. Congress has also become more professional in the sense that its members increasingly think of their jobs as careers.

Another historical trend has been a shift in the center of national policymaking leadership, from Congress, where the Founders expected it to reside, to the president. Both Congress and the American people expect the president to take
the lead in foreign policy and military affairs, making most of the tough decisions.

Congress plays a more significant role in domestic policymaking, but here too, presidents have significantly expanded their influence, assuming responsibility for fashioning a legislative program for the nation. As government's role in economic management has become more important, Congress has gradually deferred to the president's ability to steer foreign policy and the economy with a single hand. The shift in power to the executive branch in the U.S. government, though substantial, is not nearly as great as in other democratic countries, such as Great Britain and France.


III. Representation and Democracy

Do members of Congress carry out their representative responsibilities in a way that can be considered democratic?

A. Styles of Representation

Edmund Burke described two principal styles of representation. As a delegate, the representative tries to mirror perfectly the views of his or her constituents. As a trustee, the representative acts independently, trusting his or her own best judgment of the issues. The choice between these two styles of representation for members of Congress is based probably less on personal tastes than on judgments about the relative safety of their seats.

B. Who Are the Members of Congress?

A perfectly representative legislative body would have characteristics similar to the characteristics of the general population in terms of race, sex, ethnicity, occupation, religion, age, and the like. In this sense, the U.S. Congress is unrepresentative. Congress has long been a bastion of white males and remains so today. Both women and racial minorities are significantly underrepresented, especially in the Senate. Members of Congress are far better educated than the general population. They tend to come from wealthy families and enjoy incomes that are substantially above average. Nearly half are lawyers. Most of the rest come from business or the professions.

Does it matter that Congress is unrepresentative demographically of the American people? Some political scientists and close observers of Congress think not. They believe that the electoral process forces lawmakers to be
attentive to all significant groups in their constituencies.  In contrast, groups who are not well represented--such as women, blacks, other racial minorities, and the poor--believe that their interests would get a better hearing if their
numbers were substantially increased in Congress. The demographic disparity between the American population and the makeup of Congress suggests some violation of the norm of political equality, an important element of democracy.

C. The Electoral Connection

Each state is entitled to two senators. This gives extraordinary power in the legislative process to small states. This arrangement can substantially distort popular sentiment and, thus, diminish democracy. Republicans took control of the Senate after the 1980 election, for example, by winning 22 of 34 Senate elections, even though they won less than a majority of Senate votes cast nationwide. This was possible because most of their victories were in  small states.

Representation in the House of Representatives is based on population. Reapportionment of House seats between the states occurs every ten years after the national census. Although congressional districts must be approximately the same size in terms of population, state legislatures are still relatively free to draw district lines where they choose.

The party that controls the state legislature usually tries to draw district lines in a way that will help it win elections. The resulting districts are often drawn in odd- looking ways in order to take full partisan advantage of the redistricting process. When taken to the extreme, such a process is called gerrymandering.

Running for the House or the Senate is an expensive proposition, and it keeps getting more expensive. There is nothing particularly surprising about the increase in campaign spending. Inflation plays a part, as well as the ever greater reliance on expensive campaign technologies, such as direct mail; polling; focus groups; television, radio, and print advertising; and phone banks. The decline of party loyalty in the electorate also contributes to
increases in campaign spending as each candidate is now compelled to try to reach as many voters as possible.

Spending does matter in election campaigns. Though the candidate who spends the most money does not always win, the amount of money spent is related to the probability of winning. Because money matters, candidates spend a great
deal of time and effort making sure that they have enough. The dollars that support congressional campaigns come from four main sources: individuals, parties, the candidates, and PACs. The largest portion comes from individual
contributors--about 55 percent in recent elections. About one-third of the money for congressional campaigns comes from PACs, with most going to incumbents.

PAC money the fastest growing source of campaign finances. Many people believe that the increased role of PACs in congressional campaigns increases the influence of interest groups in general and business interests in particular.
Corporate, trade, and professional groups together account for over 60 percent of all PAC expenditures in congressional races.

The remainder of the campaign money comes primarily from candidates' contributions out of their own pockets and the parties, which contribute less than 2 percent of the total.

Incumbents win at higher rates today than in the past and the number of competitive districts across the nation has declined. In elections stretching from 1950 to 1988, over 90 percent of House incumbents ran for reelection, and over 90 percent were successful.

In the Senate, lower but still impressive rates of success for incumbents prevail. The somewhat more competitive nature of Senate elections may be traced to the transformation of the South from a one-party, Democratic stronghold to a more competitive two-party system. Outside the South, incumbent success in the Senate is close to that in the House.

These high success rates for incumbents may now be changing, however. Voter discontent with Congress during the 1990 elections resulted in a decline in the average incumbent's margin of victory. Concern about the incumbency effect has also sparked a term limitation movement in many states.

Incumbents enjoy several advantages over their potential rivals. Incumbents easily attract contributions. PACs and interest groups want access to key decision makers in the House and the Senate. They look at campaign contributions as an investment, a way to guarantee that their phone calls will be answered, that they will be allowed to make their case, and that their interests will be taken into account. The flow of money to incumbents is particularly heavy for those who sit on key committees or hold important leadership posts. Incumbents not only have more money but also spend more. In the 1990 congressional elections, Senate incumbents out spent challengers by a 2 to 1 margin; House incumbents out spent their challengers by a 3.5 to 1 margin.

Incumbents control the congressional machinery, which they use to help their reelection chances. Members use the franking privilege, for example, to advertise their accomplishments and keep their names before the public. The
House and the Senate also provide travel budgets for lawmakers so that they can make periodic visits back to their
state or district.

Incumbents use their offices to service their districts through casework which usually involves helping constituents deal with the federal bureaucracy. Generous budgets to staff offices in the home districts or home states help
representatives and senators do casework. Another way in which members of Congress serve their district is to provide pork, that is, federal dollars in the form of contracts, facilities, and subsidies.

Incumbents enjoy two additional advantages. First, incumbents are usually stronger candidates than challengers. That's probably why they were successful in the first place. Consequently, potentially strong opponents are reluctant to
run. Second, incumbent members of Congress may win reelection because they are doing a relatively good job representing their constituents. Research shows that members of Congress vote in conformity with majority opinion in their districts about two-thirds of the time.


IV. How Congress Works

Though Congress has lost some of its policymaking authority to the president over the years, it remains a vital center of power in our national government. By all accounts, Congress remains the most powerful legislative body among the Western democratic nations.

A. Where the Congressional Agenda Comes From

Congress's agenda is shaped by the structural, political, and governmental environment in which it works. Federal courts may rule on the  constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, and, if laws are overturned, that action may spark a legislative reaction. The president and the executive branch are also important in shaping the legislative agenda. Many of the bills that are introduced in the House and the Senate by lawmakers are actually drafted in executive departments and come to Congress after being cleared by the Office of Management and Budget.

The congressional agenda is also shaped by the many groups and individuals that comprise its political environment. Because of their key role in electoral financing, interest groups play a particularly important role in defining the
issues before the House and the Senate.

Lawmakers must balance the needs and demands of interest groups against those of the voters, their constituents, and the public. The media also shape what issues are attended to in the legislative branch. Social movements, at times, impose their own needs. At a more fundamental level, structural change mobilizes demands for congressional action from voters, interest groups, and other government officials.

B. Congressional Committees

Most of the work of Congress takes place in committee and subcommittee. Committees serve as screening devices, allowing only a small percentage of bills to take up the time of the entire legislative body. This enables Congress to
process a much larger volume of information. Committees are islands of specialization, whose members and staff develop the expertise to handle complex issues and to meet executive branch experts on equal terms. Committees are also useful to members of Congress who use their committee positions to generate benefits for their districts or states.

There are several kinds of committees, each of which serves a special function in the legislative process. A standing committee is a relatively permanent committee, specified in House or Senate rules. In most cases, standing committees are the first stop for House and Senate bills. The ratio of Democrats to Republicans on committees is set for each house through a process of negotiation between majority and minority party leaders. The majority party holds a majority of members on each committee, controls the chair, and usually holds an extra-heavy majority on the most important committees.

For most bills, hearings, negotiations, and markup take place in subcommittees. Moreover, subcommittees play an important oversight role. The number of subcommittees has multiplied rapidly since the early 1970s when the Democratic party (which controlled the House) decided to parcel out committee power and responsibilities to over 150 subcommittees. These reforms strengthened the subcommittees and led to substantially decentralized power in the house, giving rise to what some have called subcommittee government.

Select committees are temporary committees created to conduct studies or investigations. They exist because there are sometimes matters that standing committees and subcommittees cannot handle or do not wish to handle. Joint committees, with members from both houses, are organized to facilitate the flow of legislation. Finally, conference committees are supposed to resolve the difference between versions of bills coming out of the House and the Senate.

Committee assignments are important to members of Congress because they affect members' reelection chances and their ability to achieve their policy goals. Committee assignments are largely determined by the political parties, members' seniority, and members' preferences.

Each party in each chamber goes about the assignment process in a slightly different way. Most lawmaker settle into a committee, become specialists in the area of that committee's jurisdiction, and gradually move up the committee hierarchy as they accumulate years of service. New members of both houses submit their preferred committee assignments to the relevant party organizations. For the most part, they get their way if there are openings.

Not so long ago, committee chairs controlled their committees without challenge. From 1910, when substantial power was stripped from the Speaker of the House and distributed to committee chairs, until the early 1970s, when the Democratic  party reduced the power of chairs, committee chairs could assign staff, control the budget, create or abolish subcommittees at will, control the agenda, schedule meetings, and report (or refuse to report) bills to the floor.

Over the last two decades, power has migrated in both houses from the chair to the subcommittees, party leaders, and the house leadership. Nonetheless, committee chairs remain the most influential and active members of committees.

The principle of seniority generally prevails in the appointment of committee and subcommittee chairs. For most of this century prior to the 1970s, appointment by seniority was an unbreakable rule. Both Republicans and Democrats in the House instituted the secret ballot among party members for the election of chairs after 1974, however, and now seniority is occasionally ignored.

C. Political Parties in Congress

The electoral needs of lawmakers and the organization of Congress into committees and subcommittees radically fragments and decentralizes the institution. At times, Congress threatens to fly apart, with each member going his or her own way. How is it that Congress is able to operate at all? The answer may be found in a number of institutions that help foster cooperation and coordination. The most important of these are political parties, congressional leadership, and ideology, though none entirely solves the problem of fragmentation.

Political parties have a strong presence in Congress Members come to Washington, DC as elected candidates of a political party. At the opening of each session, they organize their legislative business along political party
lines. At the opening of each new Congress, each party caucus or conference meets to select party committees and officers. The majority party in the House selects the Speaker of the House, while the majority party in the Senate
selects the president pro tempore and the Majority Leader. The majority party in each house also chooses committee and subcommittee chairs, and decides the party ratios on them.

The Democratic party dominates the modern Congress. It has been the majority party in the House of Representatives for all but four years since 1932. In the Senate, the Republicans have managed to be in the majority for only ten years since 1932.

Political parties provide some glue for holding together the decentralized fragments of Congress and for lending coherence to the legislative process. Party labels are important cues for members of Congress as they decide how to vote. Research shows that party affiliation is the best predictor of the voting behavior of members of Congress. Moreover, party cohesion is fairly substantial in both chambers.

Although party label is the best predictor of the voting behavior of members of Congress, party in the U.S. is not nearly as important as it is in parliamentary systems such as that of Great Britain. Moreover, it's not entirely clear
whether party voting differences are caused directly by party affiliation or indirectly by the character of constituencies. Differences in party voting also may be attributed to ideological differences between the two parties.

Democrats tend to fall on the liberal side of the ideological spectrum, whereas Republicans tend toward the conservative side. The importance of ideology in Congress is shown by the existence of ideological coalitions that cross party lines, both liberal and conservative.

Moderate Republicans from the Northeast, popularly known as the Gypsy Moths, are nearly as likely to vote with the Democrats in Congress as with their fellow Republicans. Southern Democratic conservatives are more likely to vote with Republicans than with their own party on major issues. The support of these so-called Boll Weevil Democrats was an important reason the Reagan legislative program enjoyed such success in 1981 and 1982.

American parties are weak organizations, virtually without resources to impose discipline on their legislative representatives. Members of Congress are essentially independent operators who mount their own campaigns. Their
reelection prospects depend on their own ability to serve their districts and to maintain good relationships with their constituency. They do not depend on the party. Thus, parties have no power to compel compliance with party
positions or to discipline members who stray from the party line.

D. Congressional Leadership

Political party leaders are also the leaders of the House and the Senate. The leader in the House of Representatives is the Speaker of the House. Until 1910, the Speaker exercised great power over the House legislative process. The basis of his power was his right to appoint committees and their chairs, and his position as chair of the Rules Committee.

The revolt of the rank and file against Speaker Cannon in 1910 resulted in the Speaker's removal from the Rules Committee and the elimination of his power to appoint committees and their chairs. The House Democratic Caucus
staged a revolt against the committee system after 1974 and restored some of the powers of the Speaker.

Responsibility for committee appointments was transferred from the Ways and Means Committee to the Committee on Committees, chaired by the Speaker, and the power to appoint the Democratic members of the powerful Rules Committee was given to him. Adding these to his other powers--referral of bills to committee, control of the House agenda, appointment of select committees, and direction of floor debate--gives the modern Speaker considerable leadership resources.

The parties also have leaders which are separate from Congressional leadership positions. When Democrats are in the majority, the Democratic Caucus selects a Majority Floor Leader to help the Speaker plan strategy and manage the legislative business of the House.

In recent years, the Majority Floor Leader position has been a way station on the road to the speakership. The minority party elects a Minority Floor Leader. The Minority Floor Leader is the chief spokesperson and legislative strategist for the opposition. He not only tries to keep his forces together but also seeks out members of the majority party who might be won over against the House leadership on key issues.

Leadership in the Senate is less visible because those individuals with formal leadership titles exercise little influence. The presiding officer of the Senate is the vice president of the United States, but he is rarely in evidence
and has no power other than the right to vote to break a tie should one occur on the Senate floor.

The majority party elects a president pro tempore to preside in the absence of the vice president. The Senate Majority Leader is as close as one comes to a leader in that body, but the powers of the office pale beside those of the Speaker of the House. The degree of actual influence of the Majority Leader is based less on formal powers, than on skills of personal persuasion, the respect enjoyed from colleagues, visibility in the media as majority party
spokesperson, and role as the center of many of the various communications networks.

The majority party in the Senate remains a body of independent, relatively equal members tied together very loosely by the thin threads of party loyalty, ideology, and mutual concern for the next election. It is not an environment conducive to decisive leadership. The Senate Minority Leader exercises even less power than the Majority Leader.

E. Caucuses

Lawmakers use caucuses in an attempt to fashion coherence in a legislative environment characterized by decentralization and fragmentation. A caucus is a group formed by lawmakers who share a particular set of policy  interests that are not otherwise recognized in the formal organization of the House or Senate.

These organizations serve as a basis for the formation of political coalitions that cross the boundaries between communities, parties, and even chambers.

F. Rules and Norms

As with all organizations, Congress is guided by both formal rules and informal norms of behavior. Rules specify precisely how things should be done and what is not allowed. Norms are generally accepted expectations about how people ought to behave and how business ought to proceed. Some norms of behavior are common to both houses of Congress.

Senators and representatives are expected to act with courtesy and civility toward one other, even if they detest one other. Senators and representatives are expected to become specialists in some area or areas of policy and to
defer to the judgment of specialists on most bills. This mutual deference is known as reciprocity.

Lawmakers are also expected to be willing to compromise and strike deals. Finally, members of Congress are expected to respect the reelection motivations of their colleagues and to be willing to make certain accommodations in the legislative schedule for such purposes.

Because of its large size, legislative life in the House of Representatives is much more rule-bound than in the Senate; it tends to be more organized and hierarchical. The Senate is a more open and fluid place, and it lodges less power in its leaders than does the House. Each senator is more of an independent operator than his or her House colleagues. The Senate is a more relaxed place that accommodates mavericks and tolerates the foibles of its members.

Differences between the House and the Senate are especially apparent in floor debate. Bills are scheduled for floor debate in the Senate, for instance, not by a powerful Rules Committee, but by unanimous consent, meaning that business can be blocked by a single dissenter.

In contrast to the House, where debate on a bill is strictly regulated as to amendments and time limit, Senate tradition allows for an unlimited number of amendments and unlimited debate. Senators in the minority have used this tolerance of unlimited amendments and debate to block legislation.

Senators can also try to talk a bill to death through a filibuster. However, when a very strong majority favors a bill, the Senate can close debate by invoking cloture. Cloture requires support by three-fifths of those present and
voting. Cloture is seldom tried and rarely succeeds.

G. Congressional Staff

Although most of the media attention during deliberations on important pieces of legislation goes to prominent lawmakers in the House and Senate, the actual drafting of final legislative packages is done by members of the Congressional staff.

The size and influence of the congressional staff has grown enormously over the past quarter century. The reasons for this growth are tied to the interests of each member of Congress, and to the needs of the institution as a whole.
The staff helps members keep in touch with and serve their constituency and, in general, do their jobs as legislators. For the institution, staff enables Congress to keep up with the expertise of the executive branch.

Some scholars, journalists, and lawmakers worry about the growing influence of staff. Critics believe that lawmakers, overwhelmed by conflicting commitments, have allowed unelected committee staff to draft legislation, negotiate on legislative details, guide questioning at hearings, deal with interest groups, and strike deals with executive branch
officials.

Many observers worry that the proliferation of staff intermediaries makes real deliberation between lawmakers less likely. Defenders of the staff system respond that staff merely do what lawmakers want them to do and that critics
exaggerate the range of discretion practiced by the staff. 

H. Legislative Responsibilities: How a Bill Becomes a Law

The path by which a bill becomes a law is so strewn with obstacles that few survive. Bills can be introduced in either house with the exception of tax bills (which must originate in the House). The presiding officer in the Senate
and the Speaker in the House refer a bill to the appropriate standing committee. In some instances, leaders can exercise discretion as to committee assignment or even send a bill to more than one committee. Committee chairs normally pass the bill on to the appropriate subcommittee for hearings.

Many bills die at this stage, when either the subcommittee or the full committee declines to consider it further. If the bill makes it this far, however, the subcommittee will generally hold hearings on it. The subcommittee may then forward the bill as rewritten by the staff and subcommittee members, or it can decide to allow the bill to go no further. Rewriting the bill is called the markup, which is an intense period of bargaining and deal making with an eye toward fashioning a bill that will muster majority support in the full committee.

The subcommittee then reports its action to the full committee. The committee chair may choose to hold additional hearings and markup sessions, decide to kill the bill outright, or simply accept the action of the subcommittee.
On most bills, the full committee will simply rubber-stamp the work of the subcommittee and move it along for floor action.

If a bill is favorably reported from committee, congressional leaders schedule it for floor debate. In the House, a bill ordinarily must first go to the Rules Committee for a rule under whose terms a bill will be considered. A rule
specifies the amount of time for debate and the number (if any) of amendments allowed. Floor debate in the Senate, where rules do not limit debate, is freewheeling. After floor debate, the entire membership of the chamber votes on the bill, either as reported by the committee or (more often) after amendments have been added.

What happens if the Senate and House pass differing versions of the same bill? Before going to the president, conflicting versions of a bill must be rewritten so that a single bill gains the approval of both houses of Congress. This
compromise bill is fashioned in a conference committee made up of members from both the House and the Senate. It must be voted up or down on the floors of the House and the Senate with no further changes allowed. If, and only if, both houses approve it, the bill is forwarded to the president for his consideration.

The president can either sign the bill (making it law), refuse to sign it and allow it to become law anyway after 10 days, veto it (which Congress may override with a two-thirds vote), or issue a pocket veto (if he takes no action and
Congress adjourns before ten days pass).

I. Legislative Responsibilities: Oversight

Oversight is another important responsibility of Congress. Oversight involves keeping an eye on how the executive branch carries out the provisions of the laws that Congress has passed, and on possible abuses of power by executive
officials, including the president. Oversight is primarily the province of the committees and subcommittees of Congress.

Hearings are an important part of the oversight process. The hearings are designed to send signals from committee members to the relevant part of the bureaucracy. Congress spends an increasing amount of its time on oversight. For the most part, it responds to the complaints and the entreaties of constituents and interest groups.


V. Congressional Ethics

Critics charge that many members of Congress display a lack of ethics. Although there is no evidence that members of Congress are any less honest than any other group of professionals, the number of recent, highly publicized cases of misconduct has harmed the reputation of the institution.

Many Americans believe that members of Congress enjoy excessive privileges paid for by taxpayers. Still others believe that the main ethical problem of Congress is the close relationship members enjoy with interest groups and
their dependence on those who give them large contributions. The growing public outcry over these developments has forced Congress to create codes of ethics for its members and to establish ethics committees in both houses in order to oversee them.

VI. Congress, Public Policy, and Democracy

A. Democracy

How does Congress contribute to (or detract from) democracy? One of the main dramas of congressional life is the struggle between majority public opinion and interest groups as the engine of the legislative process. The evidence suggests that when the public is aware of issues and expresses its opinion, Congress responds to it. This connection between majority opinion and congressional behavior operates through a number of mechanisms, including public opinion polls, mail from constituents, electoral competition, and the party system.

Although Congress responds to popular preferences to an impressive degree, it is far from perfect. One out of three times Congress acts contrary to public opinion. Moreover, Congress must frequently grapple with issues about which the public is either unaware or has no opinion. It is here that interest groups become especially important.

It seems that, when the issues before Congress are technical and obscure, and public attention is low, Congress is responsive to narrow, particularistic, and privileged interests. At such times, lawmakers parcel out government
benefits to the well organized in their districts and states. This is significantly related to the prominent role played by interest groups, large contributors, and PACs.

The relationship between Congress and democracy is complicated. Congress is frequently, but not always, an effective instrument of democracy. The principles of popular sovereignty and political equality are especially at risk
when Congress responds to organized and privileged groups rather than to the public.

B. Congress as Policymaker

Critics charge that Congress is so parochial and fragmented that it cannot fashion coherent national policy. These critics claim that Congress is filled with members who are judged by the voters on the basis of their individual
attributes and service to the district and to interest groups, not on the basis of the performance of Congress as a whole.

They say that because lawmakers respond to organized interests, serve their constituency as their first order of business, and try to avoid difficult decisions that might put their reelection at risk, Congress cannot easily tackle the
nation's most difficult problems or think about solutions in general terms. Congress would rather practice distributive politics, in which benefits are parceled out to a wide range of constituency and interest group claimants. Although this approach conforms to the self-interested electoral calculations of the individual member, it is, according to many observers, the basis for the overall ineffectiveness and decline of Congress as an institution relative to the
presidency.