CHAPTER 10 – CONGRESS
CONGRESS REPRESENTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: Congress is the most
important representative institution in American government. Each member’s primary
responsibility in theory is to the people in their district or state – their constituency – not
to the congressional leadership, a party, or even Congress itself. Yet the task of
representation is not simple. Views about what constitutes fair and effective
representation differ, and different constituents may have very different expectations of
their representatives. Members of Congress must consider these diverse views and
expectations as they represent their constituencies.
o HOUSE AND SENATE – DIFFERENCES IN REPRESENTATION: The framers
of the Constitution provided for a bicameral legislature – that is, a legislative body
consisting of two chambers. The framers intended each of these chambers, the
House of Representatives and the Senate, to serve a different constituency.
Members of the Senate, appointed by state legislatures for 6-year terms, were to
represent the states, while the members of the House were to represent the
people of the United States. (Today, members of both the House and the Senate
are elected directly by the people.) The 435 members of the House are elected
from districts apportioned according to population; the 100 members of the
Senate are elected in statewide votes, with two senators from each state.
Senators continue to have much longer terms in office and usually represent
much larger and more diverse constituencies than do their counterparts in the
House. The House and Senate play different roles in the legislative process.
Traditionally, the Senate is the more deliberative of the two bodies – the forum in
which any and all ideas that senators raise can receive a thorough public airing.
The House is the more centralized and organized of the two bodies. In part, this
difference stems from the different rules governing the two bodies. These rules
give House leaders more control over the legislative process and allow House
members to specialize in certain legislative areas. The rules of the much smaller
Senate give its leadership less power and discourage specialization. Other
factors, both formal and informal, also contribute to differences between the two
chambers. Differences in the length of terms and the requirements for holding
office, specified by the Constitution, generate differences in how members of
each body serve their constituencies and exercise their power in office. For the
House, the relatively small size and uniform nature of their constituencies and the
need to seek re-election every two years make members more attuned to the
immediate legislative needs of local interest groups. The result is that the
constituents they most effectively and frequently serve are well-organized
interests with specific legislative agendas – for instance, used-car dealers
seeking relief from regulation, labor unions seeking more favorable workplace
laws, or farmers looking for higher subsidies. Senators, on the other hand, serve
larger and more diverse constituencies and seek re-election every six years. As
a result, they are somewhat more insulated from the pressures of individual,
narrow, and immediate interests.
o TRUSTEE VERSUS DELEGATE REPRESENTATION: For the Founders,
Congress was the national institution that best embodied the ideals of
representative democracy. But what is the role of a representative? A member
of Congress can interpret their job as a representative in two different ways: as a
delegate, acting on the express preferences of their constituents, or as a trustee,
more loosely tied to constituents and empowered to make the decisions they
think best. The delegate role requires representatives to stay in constant touch
, with constituents and their wishes. But most constituents do not do this. Many
pay little attention and are too busy to become well informed even on issues they
care about. Thus, the delegate form of representation runs the risk that the
voices of only a few active and informed constituents get heard. Although it
seems more democratic at first glance, it may actually open Congress up to even
more influence by special interests. When congressional members act as
trustees, on the other hand, they may not pay sufficient attention to the wishes of
their constituents, often making decisions based on their own judgement. In this
scenario, the only way the public can exercise influence is by voting every two
years for representatives and every six years for senators. In fact, most
members of Congress take this electoral check very seriously. They try to
anticipate the wishes of their constituents even when they don’t know exactly
what those wishes are, because they know that unpopular decisions can be used
against them in the coming election.
o DESCRIPTIVE VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE REPRESENTATION: We have
become so accustomed to the idea of representative government that we tend to
forget what a peculiar concept representation really is. A representative claims to
act or speak for some other person or group. But how can one person be trusted
to speak for another? How do we know that those who call themselves our
representatives are actually speaking on our behalf, rather than simply pursuing
their own interests? There are two circumstances under which one person
reasonably might be trusted to speak for another. The first occurs if the two
individuals are so similar in background, character, interests, and perspectives
that anything said by one would very likely reflect the views of the other as well.
This principle is at the heart of what is sometimes called descriptive
representation – the sort that takes place when representatives have the same
racial, gender, ethnic, religious, or educational backgrounds as their constituents.
If demographic or sociological similarity helps to promote good representation,
then the sociological composition of a representative assembly like Congress
should mirror the composition of society. The second circumstance under which
one person might be trusted to speak for another occurs if the representative is in
some way formally accountable to those they are supposed to represent. If
representatives can somehow be punished for failing to speak properly for their
constituents, then they have an incentive to provide good representation even if
their own personal backgrounds, views, and interests differ from the backgrounds
of those they represent. This principle is called substantive representation – the
sort of representation that takes place when constituents have the power to hire
and fire their representatives, as with an actor’s “agent.” Both descriptive and
substantive representation play a role in the relationship between members of
Congress and their constituents.
THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE U.S. CONGRESS: The extent to
which the U.S. Congress is representative of the American people in a
sociological sense can be seen by examining social characteristics of the
House and Senate today. African Americans, Latinos, and Asian
Americans have increased their congressional representation in the past
two decades, but the representation of people of color in Congress is still
not comparable to their increasing proportions in the general population.
After the 2020 elections, Congress was 11% African American, 8% Latino,
and 3% Asian American. By contrast, the American population was
13.4% African American, 18.1% Latino, and 5.8% Asian American.
Similarly, the number of women in Congress continues to trail far behind
, their proportion of the population. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
became the first female Speaker of the house. Following the 2020
elections, the 117th Congress (2021-23) included 117 women in the House
and 24 women in the Senate, a total all-time high. Pressure for reform in
the representative process is likely to continue until all groups are
proportionally represented. The occupational backgrounds of members of
Congress have always been a matter of interest because many issues
split along lines relevant to occupations and industries. The legal
profession is the most common career of members prior to their election,
and public service or politics is also a frequent background. In addition,
many members have important ties to business and industry. Moreover,
members of Congress are much more highly educated than most
Americans. More than 9 in 10 have college degrees, and more than one-
third have law degrees. On many dimensions, Congress is not a
reflection of the U.S. population. Can Congress legislate fairly or take
account of a diversity of views and interests if it is not a sociologically
representative assembly? Representatives can serve as the agents of
their constituents even if they do not precisely mirror their sociological
attributes. Yet descriptive representation is a matter of some importance.
At the least, the social composition of a representative assembly is
important for symbolic purposes: to demonstrate to groups in the
population that the government takes them seriously. If Congress is not
representative symbolically, then its own authority, and indeed that of the
entire government, is reduced.
REPRESENTATIVES AS AGENTS: A good deal of evidence indicates
that whether or not members of Congress share their constituents’
sociological characteristics, they do work very hard to speak for their
constituents’ views and to serve their constituents’ interests. The idea of
representative as agent is similar to the relationship of lawyer and client.
True, the relationship between the House member and an average of
710, 767 “clients” in the district, or the senator and millions of “clients” in
the state, is very different from that of the lawyer and client. But the
criteria of performance are comparable. One expects that each
representative will seek to discover the interests of the constituency and
take those interests into account as they govern. Whether members of
Congress always represent the interests of their constituents is another
matter. The internet has made communication between constituents and
congressional offices constant, and congressional offices have struggled
to find effective ways to respond in a timely manner. All congressional
offices have websites that describe their achievements, establish a
presence on social networking sites, and issue e-newsletters that alert
constituents to current issues. Many use blogs and other forms of social
media to establish a more informal style of communication with
constituents. The seriousness with which members of Congress attempt
to behave as representative scan be seen in the amount of time and
resources members spend on constituency service (called “casework”).
One measure is the percentage of House and Senate staff assigned to
district and state offices as opposed to offices in Washington. In 1972,
22.5% of House members’ personal staff were located in district offices;
by 2016 the number had grown to 47.3%. For the Senate, the staff in
state offices grew from 12.5% in 1972 to 43.2% in 2016. The service that
CONGRESS REPRESENTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: Congress is the most
important representative institution in American government. Each member’s primary
responsibility in theory is to the people in their district or state – their constituency – not
to the congressional leadership, a party, or even Congress itself. Yet the task of
representation is not simple. Views about what constitutes fair and effective
representation differ, and different constituents may have very different expectations of
their representatives. Members of Congress must consider these diverse views and
expectations as they represent their constituencies.
o HOUSE AND SENATE – DIFFERENCES IN REPRESENTATION: The framers
of the Constitution provided for a bicameral legislature – that is, a legislative body
consisting of two chambers. The framers intended each of these chambers, the
House of Representatives and the Senate, to serve a different constituency.
Members of the Senate, appointed by state legislatures for 6-year terms, were to
represent the states, while the members of the House were to represent the
people of the United States. (Today, members of both the House and the Senate
are elected directly by the people.) The 435 members of the House are elected
from districts apportioned according to population; the 100 members of the
Senate are elected in statewide votes, with two senators from each state.
Senators continue to have much longer terms in office and usually represent
much larger and more diverse constituencies than do their counterparts in the
House. The House and Senate play different roles in the legislative process.
Traditionally, the Senate is the more deliberative of the two bodies – the forum in
which any and all ideas that senators raise can receive a thorough public airing.
The House is the more centralized and organized of the two bodies. In part, this
difference stems from the different rules governing the two bodies. These rules
give House leaders more control over the legislative process and allow House
members to specialize in certain legislative areas. The rules of the much smaller
Senate give its leadership less power and discourage specialization. Other
factors, both formal and informal, also contribute to differences between the two
chambers. Differences in the length of terms and the requirements for holding
office, specified by the Constitution, generate differences in how members of
each body serve their constituencies and exercise their power in office. For the
House, the relatively small size and uniform nature of their constituencies and the
need to seek re-election every two years make members more attuned to the
immediate legislative needs of local interest groups. The result is that the
constituents they most effectively and frequently serve are well-organized
interests with specific legislative agendas – for instance, used-car dealers
seeking relief from regulation, labor unions seeking more favorable workplace
laws, or farmers looking for higher subsidies. Senators, on the other hand, serve
larger and more diverse constituencies and seek re-election every six years. As
a result, they are somewhat more insulated from the pressures of individual,
narrow, and immediate interests.
o TRUSTEE VERSUS DELEGATE REPRESENTATION: For the Founders,
Congress was the national institution that best embodied the ideals of
representative democracy. But what is the role of a representative? A member
of Congress can interpret their job as a representative in two different ways: as a
delegate, acting on the express preferences of their constituents, or as a trustee,
more loosely tied to constituents and empowered to make the decisions they
think best. The delegate role requires representatives to stay in constant touch
, with constituents and their wishes. But most constituents do not do this. Many
pay little attention and are too busy to become well informed even on issues they
care about. Thus, the delegate form of representation runs the risk that the
voices of only a few active and informed constituents get heard. Although it
seems more democratic at first glance, it may actually open Congress up to even
more influence by special interests. When congressional members act as
trustees, on the other hand, they may not pay sufficient attention to the wishes of
their constituents, often making decisions based on their own judgement. In this
scenario, the only way the public can exercise influence is by voting every two
years for representatives and every six years for senators. In fact, most
members of Congress take this electoral check very seriously. They try to
anticipate the wishes of their constituents even when they don’t know exactly
what those wishes are, because they know that unpopular decisions can be used
against them in the coming election.
o DESCRIPTIVE VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE REPRESENTATION: We have
become so accustomed to the idea of representative government that we tend to
forget what a peculiar concept representation really is. A representative claims to
act or speak for some other person or group. But how can one person be trusted
to speak for another? How do we know that those who call themselves our
representatives are actually speaking on our behalf, rather than simply pursuing
their own interests? There are two circumstances under which one person
reasonably might be trusted to speak for another. The first occurs if the two
individuals are so similar in background, character, interests, and perspectives
that anything said by one would very likely reflect the views of the other as well.
This principle is at the heart of what is sometimes called descriptive
representation – the sort that takes place when representatives have the same
racial, gender, ethnic, religious, or educational backgrounds as their constituents.
If demographic or sociological similarity helps to promote good representation,
then the sociological composition of a representative assembly like Congress
should mirror the composition of society. The second circumstance under which
one person might be trusted to speak for another occurs if the representative is in
some way formally accountable to those they are supposed to represent. If
representatives can somehow be punished for failing to speak properly for their
constituents, then they have an incentive to provide good representation even if
their own personal backgrounds, views, and interests differ from the backgrounds
of those they represent. This principle is called substantive representation – the
sort of representation that takes place when constituents have the power to hire
and fire their representatives, as with an actor’s “agent.” Both descriptive and
substantive representation play a role in the relationship between members of
Congress and their constituents.
THE SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE U.S. CONGRESS: The extent to
which the U.S. Congress is representative of the American people in a
sociological sense can be seen by examining social characteristics of the
House and Senate today. African Americans, Latinos, and Asian
Americans have increased their congressional representation in the past
two decades, but the representation of people of color in Congress is still
not comparable to their increasing proportions in the general population.
After the 2020 elections, Congress was 11% African American, 8% Latino,
and 3% Asian American. By contrast, the American population was
13.4% African American, 18.1% Latino, and 5.8% Asian American.
Similarly, the number of women in Congress continues to trail far behind
, their proportion of the population. In 2006, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
became the first female Speaker of the house. Following the 2020
elections, the 117th Congress (2021-23) included 117 women in the House
and 24 women in the Senate, a total all-time high. Pressure for reform in
the representative process is likely to continue until all groups are
proportionally represented. The occupational backgrounds of members of
Congress have always been a matter of interest because many issues
split along lines relevant to occupations and industries. The legal
profession is the most common career of members prior to their election,
and public service or politics is also a frequent background. In addition,
many members have important ties to business and industry. Moreover,
members of Congress are much more highly educated than most
Americans. More than 9 in 10 have college degrees, and more than one-
third have law degrees. On many dimensions, Congress is not a
reflection of the U.S. population. Can Congress legislate fairly or take
account of a diversity of views and interests if it is not a sociologically
representative assembly? Representatives can serve as the agents of
their constituents even if they do not precisely mirror their sociological
attributes. Yet descriptive representation is a matter of some importance.
At the least, the social composition of a representative assembly is
important for symbolic purposes: to demonstrate to groups in the
population that the government takes them seriously. If Congress is not
representative symbolically, then its own authority, and indeed that of the
entire government, is reduced.
REPRESENTATIVES AS AGENTS: A good deal of evidence indicates
that whether or not members of Congress share their constituents’
sociological characteristics, they do work very hard to speak for their
constituents’ views and to serve their constituents’ interests. The idea of
representative as agent is similar to the relationship of lawyer and client.
True, the relationship between the House member and an average of
710, 767 “clients” in the district, or the senator and millions of “clients” in
the state, is very different from that of the lawyer and client. But the
criteria of performance are comparable. One expects that each
representative will seek to discover the interests of the constituency and
take those interests into account as they govern. Whether members of
Congress always represent the interests of their constituents is another
matter. The internet has made communication between constituents and
congressional offices constant, and congressional offices have struggled
to find effective ways to respond in a timely manner. All congressional
offices have websites that describe their achievements, establish a
presence on social networking sites, and issue e-newsletters that alert
constituents to current issues. Many use blogs and other forms of social
media to establish a more informal style of communication with
constituents. The seriousness with which members of Congress attempt
to behave as representative scan be seen in the amount of time and
resources members spend on constituency service (called “casework”).
One measure is the percentage of House and Senate staff assigned to
district and state offices as opposed to offices in Washington. In 1972,
22.5% of House members’ personal staff were located in district offices;
by 2016 the number had grown to 47.3%. For the Senate, the staff in
state offices grew from 12.5% in 1972 to 43.2% in 2016. The service that
