[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20825-20827]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        TEACHING ABOUT CONGRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 3, 2000

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I highly recommend the following speech 
recently given by our distinguished former Indiana colleague Lee 
Hamilton. Lee has devoted his career as a public servant to improving 
public understanding of Congress, and I found his remarks quite timely 
and informative. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following remarks into the 
Congressional Record.

  Ten Things I Wish Political Scientists Would Teach about Congress--
   Remarks by the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, Pi Sigma Alpha Lecture, 
 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, August 31, 2000


                              Introduction

       My purpose this afternoon is to offer some thoughts on the 
     role that you, as political scientists, can play in improving 
     public understanding of the U.S. Congress.
       I do not know what each of you teaches about the Congress--
     but I do know--on the basis of several thousand public 
     meetings over three decades--that the lack of public 
     understanding about the institution is huge.
       That lack of understanding among ordinary Americans 
     concerns me deeply because it increases the public's 
     suspicions and cynicism about the Congress, weakens the 
     relationship between voters and their representatives, makes 
     it harder for public officials to govern, and prevents our 
     representative democracy from working the way it should.
       I believe you can improve public understanding of Congress 
     by teaching several basic, and rather simple, lessons about 
     this sometimes puzzling institution.
       If Americans leave high school and college with a solid 
     understanding of Congress, they will be better able to 
     contribute to our nation's political life and will help make 
     our representative democracy work better.


                   Ten things to teach about Congress

       First, I'd like you to teach that Congress is the most 
     important link between the American people and their national 
     government.
       Many Americans have little appreciation for the basic 
     function and role of Congress in our political system. I want 
     you to help them understand that Congress is the institution 
     whose job it is to seek consensus out of the many and diverse 
     views of the American people. I want you to explain that 
     Congress performs the extraordinary task of legislating and 
     overseeing the government in the interest of more than 275 
     million Americans.
       For all its deficiencies--which I will get to later--
     Congress has three great strengths:
       Congress is, by far, the most representative institution in 
     the United States. We live in a complicated country of vast 
     size and remarkable diversity. Our people are many; they're 
     spread far and wide; and they represent a great variety of 
     beliefs, religions, and ethnicities. It isn't easy for such a 
     country to live together peacefully and productively. 
     Although Congress does not perfectly mirror the demographics 
     of the American people, it does help bind us together by 
     representing the country's great diversity.
       Congress is also accessible--much more so than any other 
     part of the federal government. Congress is the primary 
     ``listening

[[Page 20826]]

     post'' of the people. If an ordinary American has a complaint 
     or suggestion about the government, he cannot reach the 
     President, or the Vice President, or a cabinet secretary--or 
     even a deputy assistant secretary. He can reach his 
     Representative or Senator.
       And Congress is our nation's chief deliberative body. It is 
     the place where the many views and interests of the American 
     people on all manner of subjects get thrashed out. It remains 
     the central forum for vigorous public debate, consensus 
     building and decision making on the most important issues of 
     the day.
       Second, I'd like you to explain that Congress has a major 
     impact on people's everyday lives.
       Many Americans believe Congress accomplishes little and is 
     simply irrelevant to their daily lives. I'd like you to help 
     correct that misperception.
       While Congress is no longer the most powerful institution 
     in the national government--as it was at the beginning of the 
     19th century--it is still an important shaper of national 
     life.
       Americans pay more attention to Congress as they understand 
     the impact congressional decisions have on the fabric of 
     their lives. When Congress funds basic research in science, 
     it's helping create the future cures for deadly diseases. 
     When it raises the minimum wage, it's enabling people to rise 
     out of poverty. When it protects national parks, it's 
     preserving our natural heritage.
       I want Americans--I want your students--to appreciate that 
     nearly every aspect of their lives is touched by the 
     decisions of Congress.
       It's remarkable how quickly we forget that Congress has 
     been involved in some big things in recent years: Erasing the 
     federal deficit; Overhauling the welfare and public housing 
     systems; Rewriting telecommunications laws; Approving 
     billions to improve roads and bridges; and Liberalizing 
     international trade.
       Although we may not all like what Congress did on each of 
     these issues, after debating policy options and gauging 
     public sentiment, it acted.
       Third, I'd like you to emphasize that Congress was not 
     designed to move quickly and efficiently.
       One of the most common complaints about the Congress is 
     that it's always arguing and bickering. I must have heard the 
     complaint a hundred times: ``Why can't you guys ever agree?''
       This perception is a major factor in the public's lack of 
     confidence in the institution.
       Why is it so difficult for Congress to reach agreement? 
     Part of the answer involves politics. The struggle for 
     partisan or personal advantage, particularly in an election 
     year, can stall the work of Congress substantially.
       But there is much more to it than that. Our system of 
     government was intentionally set up with many checks and 
     balances to prevent hasty action. Legislative dispute and 
     delay, while frustrating, are not necessarily signs of 
     democracy in decay.
       The task of achieving consensus is made especially 
     difficult today because the issues before Congress are so 
     numerous, complex and technical, and they come at Members 
     with staggering rapidity.
       In the Federalist Papers, Madison wrote that a Member of 
     Congress must understand just three issues: commerce, 
     taxation and the militia. To a Member today, that observation 
     is a bit quaint, to say the least.
       Take the ten most difficult issues facing our country and 
     you can be sure that Congress will take each of them up in 
     some form over the coming year.
       People misunderstand Congress' role if they demand that 
     Congress be a model of efficiency and quick action. Congress 
     can work quickly if a broad consensus exists in the country. 
     But such a consensus is rare--especially on the tough issues 
     at the forefront of public life today. Usually, Congress must 
     build a consensus. It cannot simply impose one on the 
     American people.
       The quest for consensus can be painfully slow, and even 
     exasperating, but it is the only way to resolve disputes 
     peacefully and produce policies that reflect the varied 
     perspectives of our diverse citizenry.
       Fourth, I'd like you to highlight the great dynamism and 
     complexity of the legislative process.
       When I visit with students in American government classes, 
     I make a point of flipping through their textbooks to see the 
     diagram illustrating ``How a Bill Becomes a Law''. The 
     diagram usually explains that a piece of legislation, once 
     introduced, moves through subcommittee and committee, then to 
     the House and Senate floors, then to a House-Senate 
     conference, and finally to the President for his signature or 
     veto.
       In a technical sense, of course, these diagrams are 
     generally accurate. But my reaction to them is: ``How boring! 
     How sterile!'' They fail to convey the challenge, the hard 
     work, the excitement, the obstacles to overcome, the 
     political pressures, the defeats suffered, and the victories 
     achieved to enact legislation. They give a woefully 
     incomplete picture of how complicated and untidy the 
     legislative process can be, and they barely hint at the clash 
     of interests and the multitude of difficult things a Member 
     must do to shepherd an idea into law.
       One of the most important and time-consuming aspects of the 
     legislative process is conversation: the scores--even 
     hundreds--of one-on-one talks that a skillful Member will 
     have with colleagues to make the case for a particular bill, 
     to learn what arguments opponents will use to try to block 
     it, and to get a sense of what adjustments might be needed to 
     move it along.
       These conversations end up posing difficult dilemmas to a 
     Member pushing a bill. For instance, should the Member alter 
     the proposal to broaden its appeal, or keep the bill as it is 
     and hope to defeat the opposition?
       How should the Member use the media--to rally public 
     support behind the measure, put pressure on opponents, and 
     advance the legislation?
       The increased size and scope of individual bills today 
     makes the legislative process still more complicated. Almost 
     half of the major bills are referred to more than one 
     committee in each chamber. Ad hoc caucuses are sometimes 
     created to address new concerns. As the number of actors 
     involved proliferates, the possibilities for conflict over a 
     bill increase.
       All of this adds up to a process that is extremely dynamic, 
     unpredictable and messy. There are ways for astute Members to 
     get around nearly every stage in the traditional model of the 
     process.
       Even for Members, it can be difficult to know when and 
     where the key decisions on a bill will be made.
       Fifth, I'd like you to teach that what this country needs 
     is more, not fewer, politicians.
       Members of Congress are, first and foremost, politicians. 
     Their number one objective is to get re-elected.
       Yet the art of politics does not often get high praise 
     these days. When the federal government was almost shut down 
     a few years back, that was considered ``politics''. When 
     Washington, D.C. was consumed by the impeachment of President 
     Clinton, and the rest of the people's business had to take a 
     back seat, that was attributed to ``politics''.
       Showing skill as a ``politician'' has come to mean 
     demonstrating the ability to raise campaign funds, to engage 
     in the tit-for-tat exchange of negative advertising, to fudge 
     your positions, or to jockey for public support based on 
     polls and focus groups.
       But the fact is that good politicians are vital to the 
     success of our representative democracy. When I say 
     ``politician,'' I mean someone who knows how to practice the 
     art of politics.
       This art involves an assortment of important, but often 
     underappreciated, skills. Good politicians must know how to 
     listen--in order to find out what people want. They must be 
     able to build support for their ideas with colleagues, 
     constituents and key individuals. They must search for common 
     ground across parties and among people with diverse 
     interests. They must be able to compromise while preserving 
     core beliefs. And they must get results--achieving passage of 
     legislation that meets people's needs.
       To avoid coming apart at the seams, our country needs 
     people who know how to practice the art of politics. That is 
     what good politicians do: they make democratic government 
     possible in a nation alive with competing factions.
       Politicians may not be popular, but they are indispensable 
     to making representative democracy work.
       That's why we need more politicians, not fewer.
       Sixth, I'd like you to teach that Members of Congress 
     behave better than people think.
       The perception that Members are corrupt, or immoral, or 
     enriching themselves at the taxpayer's expense, takes a 
     serious toll on our system of government.
       Americans of all stripes like to dwell on misbehavior by 
     Members of Congress. People look at the latest scandal and 
     assume they're seeing the real Congress. But they're not, not 
     by a long shot.
       Don't get me wrong. I'm not proposing my former colleagues 
     for sainthood. But as the press lauds two vice presidential 
     candidates--Republican Dick Cheney and Democrat Joe 
     Lieberman--for their probity in Congress, we should remember 
     that probity is the rule, not the exception.
       Some Members, of course, do engage in improper conduct--and 
     our system of financing elections degrades politician and 
     donor alike--but my experience is that most Members are 
     remarkable people who care deeply about our country and seek 
     to better it through their public service. Most could make 
     far more money on the outside, but choose to serve in 
     Congress because they want to contribute to their country.
       Moreover, the ethical standards in Congress are higher than 
     ever before. When I entered the House, gifts and the use of 
     campaign contributions for personal use were unrestricted; 
     financial disclosure was not required of Members; there was 
     no written code of conduct; and no standing House ethics 
     committee existed to police the membership. All that has 
     changed.
       Certainly, Congress still has major strides to make in this 
     area. The role of the House Ethics Committee, for instance, 
     has not yet been fully worked out, and its performance has 
     been disappointing over the last few years.
       But the ethical climate at the Capitol is light years ahead 
     of where it was a couple of

[[Page 20827]]

     decades ago. And, I might add, light years ahead of the 
     common wisdom.
       Seventh, I'd like you to teach that Members of Congress do 
     pay attention to their constituents.
       Often I hear that Members of Congress only pay attention to 
     power brokers and big-time donors and don't care about 
     ordinary citizens. That simply is not true.
       Sometimes when I stood in front of a roomful of voters, I 
     could feel a curtain of doubt hanging between them and me: I 
     took the positions I did, they believed, because of this or 
     that campaign contribution, not because I'd spent time 
     studying and weighing the merits of issues. They had given 
     themselves over to cynicism, and cynicism is the great enemy 
     of democracy. It is very difficult for public officials to 
     govern when their character, values, and motives are always 
     suspect.
       Of course, Members of Congress are influenced by special 
     interests--often too much, in my view--but they are even more 
     influenced by their constituents.
       Members are--for the most part--very good politicians. They 
     know what their constituents think. They hold numerous public 
     meetings, poll their districts regularly, talk on the phone 
     with constituents frequently, and answer hundreds of letters 
     and e-mail messages daily. They are constantly helping to 
     solve constituents' problems.
       Members really do believe that constituent views are 
     important; during all my years in Congress I never heard a 
     Member say otherwise.
       My view, in fact, is that Members are sometimes too close 
     to their constituents--particularly when they risk reflecting 
     their constituents' views at the expense of their own 
     judgment. It was Lincoln who said that the art of democratic 
     government is to be out in front of your constituents, but 
     not too far out in front.
       Eighth, I'd like you to emphasize that citizens play an 
     essential role in making Congress work.
       The American people bear more responsibility for the 
     success of our representative democracy than they realize. If 
     people don't participate in the political process, their 
     views cannot be effectively represented. This is not just a 
     matter of voting. Our system depends upon open and trusting 
     interaction between representatives and the people who 
     elected them.
       Let me give you an example of what I mean. Back in the late 
     1970s, I was meeting with a group of constituents in 
     Switzerland County, a deeply rural, tobacco growing county in 
     the far southern corner of Indiana. It was not a place I 
     expected to come for enlightenment on international politics.
       While talking with the group, though, the subject of the 
     Panama Canal treaties came up. This was well before the media 
     had focused on the issue, but a man I'd never met suddenly 
     stood up and laid out the clearest, most evenly reasoned 
     argument for ratification that I ever did hear on the 
     matter--even after the treaty debate mushroomed into a raging 
     national issue. I was flabbergasted, but took it as a 
     humbling reminder that as a Member of Congress, you can 
     always find constituents who can teach you a thing or two 
     about an issue.
       My constituent in Switzerland County understood that the 
     relationship between a citizen and a representative requires 
     more than a quick handshake, or a vote, or a moment's pause 
     to sign a computer-generated postcard. He understood that 
     there must be a conversation, a process of mutual education, 
     between citizens and representatives.
       Many Americans have given up on the conversation. They must 
     understand that they need to get involved if they want our 
     system to improve.
       They need to know that the nature of this relationship 
     between the representative and the represented--and the 
     honesty of the exchange between the two--shapes the strength 
     of our representative democracy.
       Ninth, I hope you teach that Congress needs a lot of 
     improvement--to make it more accountable, transparent, 
     responsive and efficient.
       I urge you to be unrelenting critics of the Congress--but 
     in the context of everything else I've said so far.
       I won't go into detail here because you are familiar with 
     these problems.
       The incessant money chase--to fund increasingly costly 
     campaigns--diverts Members' attention from their important 
     responsibilities and leads to a growing sense that access is 
     bought and sold.
       Many Members--especially Members of the House--operate 
     today in a state of perpetual campaigning. Rather than trying 
     to develop consensus and pass laws, they view the legislative 
     session primarily as an opportunity to frame issues and 
     position themselves for the next election.
       It is extremely difficult to defeat incumbents in Congress. 
     Their financial advantages are great and they use the 
     redistricting process to create districts that are heavily 
     partisan in their favor.
       Bitter partisanship and personal attacks have become all 
     too common in Congress--poisoning the atmosphere and making 
     it harder to meet the needs of the country.
       Special interest groups have too much influence over 
     Congress. They play an important role by representing the 
     views of different segments of the population, but they often 
     have tunnel vision--advancing narrow interests at the expense 
     of the national interest.
       The committee system has been eroded and is close to 
     collapse. Legislation is regularly drafted in informal 
     settings outside the authorizing committees and brought 
     directly to the House or Senate floor.
       Congress devotes too little attention to some of the 
     country's major long-range challenges. How can we ensure that 
     we have adequate food, energy, and water supplies well into 
     the future? How do we maintain a prosperous and open economy? 
     What domestic and international environmental challenges will 
     we face? Congress spends so much of its time struggling to 
     pass its basic spending bills that these kinds of long-term 
     issues are simply set aside and not dealt with.
       Congress doesn't perform adequate oversight of government 
     programs. Oversight of the implementation of laws is at the 
     very core of good government. But congressional oversight has 
     shifted away in recent years from the systematic review of 
     programs to highly politicized investigations of individual 
     public officials.
       Current scheduling practices make it difficult for Congress 
     to carry out its responsibilities. The 2 1/2 to 3 day 
     legislative workweek makes it impossible for Members to 
     attend all of their committee meetings and other official 
     business.
       There is a severe lack of accountability in the 
     appropriations process. Congress increasingly turns to 
     omnibus legislation--combining hundreds of different 
     provisions into one huge bill, tacking on unrelated riders 
     and wasteful earmarks,
       The rules for the consideration of bills in the House are 
     often too restrictive. Although there has been some 
     improvement in the 106th Congress, the House leadership has 
     tended over the years to design rules that sharply curtail 
     debate, restrict the opportunity for the average Member to 
     participate, and limit the amendments and policy options that 
     can be considered.
       The Senate regularly fails to consider presidential 
     nominations for key judicial posts and cabinet positions in a 
     timely manner. This practice blocks appointments that are 
     critical for the effective functioning of our government.
       Congress must take its own reform seriously. It should work 
     on reform every year--not every ten years, as has been its 
     pattern.
       Finally, I'd like you to teach that in spite of these many 
     problems with Congress, our representative democracy works. 
     It may be slow, messy, cumbersome, and even unresponsive at 
     times, but it has many strengths, and continues to serve us 
     well.
       Some say our institutions of government--including the 
     Congress--create more problems than they solve. In the past 
     decade, we experienced an intensified assault on government 
     from some quarters, and ``government'' and ``Washington, 
     D.C.'' became bad words, symbols of the worst kind of 
     corruption and waste. My hope is that we are now beginning to 
     move away from that kind of extreme anti-government rhetoric. 
     The more positive tone of the present presidential campaign 
     would suggest that we are.
       Representative democracy, for all its faults, is our best 
     hope for dealing with our nation's problems. It works through 
     a process of deliberation, negotiation and compromise--in a 
     word, the process of politics. Politics is the way we 
     represent the will of the people in this country. At its 
     best, our representative democracy gives a system whereby all 
     of us have a voice in the process and a stake in the product.
       I don't for a moment agree with those who think that our 
     representative democracy has failed or that the future of the 
     country is bleak.
       Just consider the condition of America today. In general I 
     think it is a better place than it was when I came to 
     Congress some 35 years ago.
       Of course, our country still faces serious problems--from 
     reducing economic inequality to improving access to health 
     care to strengthening our schools--but overall we are doing 
     quite well.
       We must be doing something right.
       Churchill's remark that ``democracy is the worst system 
     devised by the wit of man, except for all the others,'' still 
     rings true.
       I would hope that when each student leaves your class, he 
     or she would appreciate that this representative democracy of 
     ours works reasonably well.

     

                          ____________________