Is Congress Productive?

Polling indicates that most Americans don’t think so…A poll published on August 3, 2014 by NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist College found that 74%, nearly three-fourths of voters, think that Congress has been somewhat or very unproductive this year. Basically—Americans don’t think Congress does anything. So how do we define productivity as it relates to Congress?

At a fundraiser on August 6^th President Obama said, "This has become the least productive Congress in modern history…And that's by objective measures, just basic activity." So how would President Obama determine whether or not Congress was productive? One definition of productivity is “the effectiveness of productive effort, especially in industry, as measured in terms of the rate of output per unit of input”. Essentially, in legislative terms, how many laws has Congress passed? In a divided Congress, where Republicans in the House block legislation from the Democratic Senate and vice versa, it is difficult for the parties to compromise and find a version of a bill both houses can pass. So can we simply look at the sheer number of bills passed per session as an accurate measure?

If we calculate productivity by volume of legislation, then yes, the 113^th session of Congress has been particularly unproductive, even by historical standards. Total volume of legislation tends to decrease when Republicans and Democrats both control a house of Congress, but the current divided Congress is particularly gridlocked.

Graph from The Fix by Chris Cillizza

What does the Constitution say?

In Article 8 of the Constitution, the duties of Congress are outlined. These myriad responsibilities include: the power to collect taxes, pay off debts, provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations, establish immigration guidelines, coin money, punish counterfeiters, establish post offices and roads, promote the progress of science and the useful arts, provide patents, punish crimes committed at sea, declare war, raise and support armies, maintain a navy, make rules for the governing of army and naval forces and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States”.

That is a pretty comprehensive list of congressional duties. And making laws is just one of them. To be sure, fulfilling many of these duties requires writing legislation, but is Congress required to make new laws?

How do members of Congress use their time?

In fact, most members of Congress spend their time visiting with constituents and raising money for their next election. A PowerPoint presentation given to new congressmen by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) outlines an example daily schedule. First, 4 hours of call time, 1-2 hours of constituent visits, 2 hours of committee meetings, 1 hour of strategic outreach and 1 hour of “recharge time”. This makes for a 10 hour day. New legislation is not necessarily being written during any of this time. Especially for member of the House of Representatives who are up for reelection every two years, the time spent calling may not be an exaggeration. In fact, former Representative Tom Perriello (D-Va.) said that four hours to make fundraising phone calls could be “low-balling the figure so as not to scare the new Members too much.”

Slide from a PowerPoint presentation given by the DCCC to incoming members of Congress.

If members of Congress spend four hours per day raising money for the next election, would voters find that time “productive”? Are fundraising events more productive than establishing immigration guidelines or raising and supporting armies? Doubtful. Although Congress doesn’t necessarily need to pass more laws every year to seem productive, Congress does need to act on issues that matter to voters. The idea of immigration reform, for example, has been tossed around for years, but nothing has been done. But in order for voters to view Congress as productive, decisive action needs to be taken on important issues. Unfortunately, expecting a Democratic Senate and a Republican House to compromise on important issues may just be asking too much.

Beirut to Benghazi: A Timeline of Embassy Attacks

We mourn, but then we must move forward.

The loss of American lives is always a tragedy. When these losses occur overseas, especially in areas of conflict, we get angry and demand answers. Never has this been more true than with the September 2012 attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead. Since then, Republicans have been on an obsessive hunt for any information that might place blame for the tragedy on the White House. The response has been overwhelming and just a tad excessive. Both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary John Kerry have been called to testify to Congress. The House of Representatives has conducted more than 13 hearings, written more than 25,000 pages of documents and held more than 50 briefings about the events in Benghazi.

On August 6, 2014, the House Intelligence Committee released yet another report on Benghazi. According to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel, "Our investigation found the intelligence community warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened." Essentially, the events were not a result of malicious intentions—only a tragic misread of the available information. This conclusion matches every previous Congressional report and hearing.

Despite these findings, a House Select Committee created in May 2014 will continue to call hearings to examine evidence from the attacks. Apparently, Republicans think there is more to find. It has been almost two years since the Benghazi tragedy, and yet, Congress continues to spend time and taxpayer money rehashing the same information over and over.

But it wasn’t always this way. Unfortunately, attacks on US embassies are not a new phenomenon. The Global Terrorism Database, a service of the University of Maryland, College Park, has compiled information on over 125,000 terrorist attacks across the world. Their data shows that there have been more than 30 deadly attacks on US embassies and consulates since 1970. The timeline below shows attacks that resulted in at least two casualties. Note that the events in Benghazi technically occurred over two days in September 2012.

Timeline includes attacks on US embassies and consulates since 1970 with at least two casualties.

So how have similar situations been handled by Congress? On April 18, 1983, with President Ronald Reagan in office, a suicide bomber drove a truck into the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The resulting blast killed 63 people, 17 of whom were Americans, including top CIA personnel. This incident is still the most deadly terrorist attack on American diplomatic ground. On October 23, 1983, another bomber drove a truck of explosives into a US Marine compound in Beirut, killing over 240 servicemen. Despite the fact that Congress was controlled by Democrats, the White House was not blamed for the attack. The Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, ordered a hearing and investigation—just one.

The investigation concluded, finding that “very serious errors in judgment were made”, and the document suggested urgent security measures for President Reagan to implement overseas. Just months after the report was written, in March of 1984, another US embassy was bombed in Beirut. The CIA’s station chief, Bill Buckley, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered. In the wake of this third tragedy in Beirut in eighteen months, Congress didn’t hold any hearings. All of the culpability went to the perpetrators, not our government.

There are a lot of lessons here. First, safety measures can always be improved. In both the Beirut and Benghazi bombings, the intelligence community had intercepted information that could have prevented the attack. Unfortunately, in a dangerous world, those particular threats were not given priority. But time cannot go backwards, and we cannot save the four brave Americans we lost in Libya. We should always adapt and advance our security measures, but we must go on.

In the aftermath of the Beirut attacks, Congress was outraged—at the terrorists—at the people who brutally ended the lives of so many. A thorough investigation followed, and the resulting report identified specific weaknesses in our defense. Our security tactics evolved as a result and Americans were safer. And the episode was over. No subpoenas. No endless hearings and briefings. No political cudgel to hold over the opposition party throughout midterm elections. Instead, there was a resolution.

My advice to Congress is this: We mourn, we investigate, we improve; but then we move forward. We must—otherwise our enemies succeed by keeping us stuck in the past.

Life is a {Structurally Deficient} Highway: Replenishing the Highway Trust Fund

Photo by Randy Heinitz. License here.

On July 15, 2014, Congress passed an emergency funding measure for the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), ensuring that current summer construction projects can continue past the August deadline. This short-term solution will sustain the HTF for now, but Congress and the White House will need to work together to pass more secure legislation. The condition of our nation’s highways is declining rapidly, and the timely upkeep of our roads is extremely important for our safety and economic security.

Why should we care about the HTF? The HTF was created in 1956 as a way to federally finance the growing system of interstate highways. While state and local governments are responsible for roads within their municipal boundaries, interstate highways pass through several state borders. The HTF was designed to provide funding for these multi-state roadways. The HTF is mostly funded by gasoline taxes, but the gasoline tax has not been raised since the 1990s. As vehicles become more efficient, gasoline tax revenues will continue to decrease precipitously.

A report by the American Society of Civil Engineers states: “The Congressional Budget Office sees the crisis worsening when considering newly proposed fuel economy standards that will lower fuel tax revenues by an additional 21% by 2040. Such a decrease would result in a $57 billion drop in the Highway Trust Fund between 2012 and 2022.” If funding for the HTF continues to be sustained by the gasoline tax, the tax needs to be raised to reflect improving fuel efficiency.

Why is Congress involved with highway maintenance? In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it says: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”. Congress has the power to tax, in part to create and maintain the country’s infrastructure including roads, bridges, dams, public transportation, energy, levees, drinking water, railroads, ports and waste management. These public goods are necessary for our communities to thrive and grow.

Public goods are unique in economics because their value cannot be calculated by the cost of implementation. Instead, public goods have value because of what would happen if they were not in place. For example, a system for cleaning drinking water is valuable because of the diseases we avoid by investing in good water filtration. If the elements of our infrastructure are not maintained appropriately, society suffers. The Constitution states that Congress has a duty to protect the “general Welfare of the United States” and that includes the maintenance of interstate roads. Poor interstate roads can negatively affect commerce among states. If goods cannot be shipped safely or quickly between states, the national economy will deflate.

Some conservative groups argue that states should be left with control over highway repairs, as they were before the HTF was created. If funding of road repairs was left to the individual states, however, poorer states may not be able to fix their roads, making it difficult or even impossible to bring goods into those states. Because state economies are so different, the federal government needs to even out the disparities and ensure that each state has the same opportunity to participate in the national economy.

Are our roads really that bad? Short answer: yes! The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) produces an annual report card for America’s infrastructure. In ASCE’s 2013 report, America’s roads are given a D grade, meaning our roads are at risk. Specifically, a D grade means “the infrastructure is in poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” The report goes on to state that 32% of American roadways are structurally deficient, which costs U.S. motorists “$67 billion a year, or $324 per motorist, in additional repairs and operating costs”.  Data about the safety of our bridges isn’t much better: one in nine American bridges were considered structurally deficient in 2012. In five states, at least 20% of bridges are in poor condition; while in the nation’s capitol, a whopping 77% of bridges are considered either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

While the latest bill will sustain the HTF short-term, our highways still need help. Ideas for a long-term solution for funding highway maintenance, like raising the gasoline tax, are necessary—not just for our safety on the road, but for our national economy too. Congress, let’s make sure we can still get our kicks on Route 66 by securing a bright future for the Highway Trust Fund!

Explore ASCE’s latest Infrastructure Report Card here.