BARNARA SINCLAIR
162
do,uvnturns,tax cuts, and politicians' unr'l'illingnessto spend tionr Social
Securiry reserves..
To be sure, the notion of "fixing gridlock" catt be rroubling. One
person\ stalemateis another's preferred legisiative outcome. In the polarized and polarizing era that legislators inhabit today, it is doubtful that
true dif[erences over desirable ends and means can or shou]d ahvaysbe
negotiated away.But neither can we depend on the emergence of cohesive
political parties to resolvc recurring episodesof gridlock, as \\re sce now
that the faith of parry governrlerrt scholars in disciplined parties was
nrisplaced:gridlock only increasesas the political center recedcs.
25
BARBARA
SINCLAIR
The "60 Vote Senate"
BttrharaSinclairtakesrcadtrsdetp insidt rlrr L/.S. Sutatt'.Linder'
Prttfessor
ttt ttPpruitttitrg
standin.qthL'rulcs ind rustortsof the rhamhcr i-sc.s-sctlrial
in tht L.tnircdS/,lrcs,or nutrt'acarratcly,
tlrc Sentttt'srLtlcin Txrlicy-making
Sirrr/,rircxplahs tlrcJtliltnstcrdnd tltc
tfu lacko.l'lxtlicy-making.
-rorrrelinrc-s
s5g pl- the
.loturc rul(. Shc ,tlJi'r-:stttnt'intcrcstitt!ddld tttt tlrc clnn.qin.q
filibusterand rlonrt over timc. Tlntse ttl'you u,ln .liillotu tln' news ahorrt
tht' nttminationttl'ftderaliudgts ard otlttr prtsidcntialappoitttt'tsknotuall
tlrc prailice ttl' stnatorsplacing
ilout the-filibusttr. Sintlair tlrctrdcscrihcs
"lutlds" (rtt nldtters
cLtninginfrontof tlrc Surata.Holds, tlvcatso-f-filibustt'rs,
n lLl ' a n t h a t t h eS e r i a fie. st h t l a s t h e s t l x t p t otfl t c n i n t r i t y .
utd-filibustersa
Tlnt was the plan, snys 5',,rror, hnt prrlntpstoday\ Suntr: hts takL'rr
bcyondthc Frantrs' itrtcnt.
obstructitttr
Vote Senate"
163
( nt\. ser)atorsface ferver constr:rintsthan the nrenrbers of any other
i'r\l.rtlrrein the u'orld. Yet senatorshavenot rlw'aysexploited the possibilrr(\ lnllerent in the rulcs to the santeextent ancl in Chesante wa_V.
...
I hc claini that the Senateis a unique legislarivecharnber restson the
', r),rtc'shrehlv perrnissiverules concerning floor debate and arrrendiug
L,rrvrt\,.Senatorscan hold the floor as long as thcy like so long as cloture
not iuvoked, a procedure that requires a supernrajoriry.Senatorscalt
,titr;ls nrrnv arnendnrentsas thev lvish to alnrost any bill, and usually
'lr()\c .llr)el)rlnrents
need not even be germane'fhc
Senatehas. . . severaltinres altered its deblte rules, and rhe cirun)st:lncesof its doing so arc illunrinating. The nlost inrportant chlnge
rnrc in 1917 r.vhen the Senate adoyted Rr.rle 22, which, tbr the first
rrrnc. provided tbr a way to cut offdebate over the objections of sonre
,( r).rtors.When "a srnallgroup oirvilltul rnen" blockct'lPresidentWilson's
'l917,
to i.lrrlrAnrerican r-nerchantships in
Wilson rnanlglcd to
i,r,rpr:lrirl
t,r(r-l\ intcllse pr.rblicattention on the Senatc\ debrte rtrles, arrcipublic
,'l'rnion tbrced thc body to tgree to a procedure tbr cutting offdebate.
I ,,cn so, the cloture procedure institllted was cunrbersonre.Sixteen senar()r'\h;rd to file a petition requestinea vote to cnd dcbltc. on the ntatre'r
rr r\sue;nvo days:rfterthe frling, a vote would bc tlken, rncl if two-thircis
,'t thosc prcscnt and voting supported the cloturc ntotion, debrte rvoulcl
l', linritcdto onc hour per senJtor.
Tl-rerr,rlehas been chrngcd severaltinres sincc. Most irrrport:rntly,in
1')75 thc thresl.roldtor cutting ofl debate on leqislrtion was reduceclto
rlrrce-flfths of the total nrenrbership(r,rsually
sixry), though stopping debate
()n ;1proposalto chanlle Senatc rules still requires a two-thirds vote....
. . . l A l t t h e t a b l e s h o w s ,t h e u s e o f e x t e n d e d d e b a t ea n d o f c l o t u r e
lr.rsincrcaseclenormously over the post-World War ll period. To be sr.rrc,
rirc rl.rtrrnrust be reqardcd g,ith sourc crlltion. Wherr lengthy clebate
1,.'colrrcs
a filibuster is, in p:rrr, a nlatter ofjudgnrent. Furthernrore, :rsI
.lrou'belou,',filibustershavechlnged their fornt in recent years,arrdthreats
Wuprue,n FROMJTMMYSrrwRnr's .\1r.Slritlr Gocsto Wtsltirlgfo/r,the great civil rights battles of the 1960s, or yesterdayevening's
knot'n'of the
nervs,Americans, if thev know anything about the Ser"rate,
fllibuster. Both glorified and reviled, the Senate filibuster has bccn the
subjectofmuch conlnlentary,writtetr and oral, and sonteexcellentanalyses
have recently appeared. Yet there is still much that rve do not knorv
ro fllibuster have become nruch nrore frequent than actual talkfestson
rlrc 1loor.As a consequence,cloture is sonretinressought before any overt
, r'iclcnccoia filibuster nranifesrsitself on the llor>r.Nr'vertheless,experts
rrrrlparticipantsagreerhat rhe iiequency ofobstructionisrn has increased,
s thc tlble indicates.In the 195(ls,filibusrers\vere rarc; they increlsed
'iLrrins the 1960sand again during the 1970s. l3y the late 19fl0sand rhe
about the impact on the legislativeprocessand on legislativeoutconles
of extended debate and related Senate floor rules.
Thc Senatehasahvaysoperatedunder rules that vest enornlous power
in each individual scr)ator.In holding the floor and rn proposins amend-
l()()()s,they had becorne routinc, occurring at a rate of nrore than one a
ilr()nth-considerably nrore if'only the tirrte the Senate was in session
rr.rs counted. Cloture votes increased in tandern.:rnd more than one
, l()tr-lrcvote per issue is lto\\, tht, nornr. Clotul'c Votes are, however,
164
BARI]ARA SINCLAIR
THr' INcneRserN Frr-rlusrEr\sANt)(lrctrurre Vcxls. 1951-98
(lloture
Years
195I-60
1961-70
1971-80
I9U1-86
1987,92
1993-9.{
1995-9(r
1997-98
Congresses
82-86th
87-9 1st
92-()6th
c)7-99rh
10(f-1o2nd
10-lrd
10.+rh
1( ) 5 t h
Filibr-rstcrs
pc'r Clon*ress
1.0
.+.6
11.2
16.7
26.7
-3()
25
29
Votes per
Congress
.+
).:
22.1
23,0
39.0
11
50
5-l
Sr,rccessful
Cloture
Votes per
Conqress
()
.6
8.6
10.o
15.3
1.+
(,)
18
Sourccs: (lloturc x)tcs tioltr "A Look rt rhc Scnrrc Frlibusrer." l)S() Spccirl Report,
J u n e 1 - j , 1 9 9 - 1 ,N o . 1 ( t 3 - 2 3 , 4 t r p " , r d i x B ( c o n r p r l c d b r ' ( i o r r q r c s s r o n r l l l c ' s c r r c h S c r v r c c ) .
S u c c e s s t i rcl l ( ) t u r c v o t c s f r o r r r ( ) r r r s t c i n . M r r r n . r r r c l M r l t r i n ( l ( ) 9 { . 1 ( r . 2 ) . I ) a t a f i r r 1 O 3 r d
( i o n g r c s s i r e n r I \ i c h r r d S . l l c t h . " ( l l o t u r c i n t l r e S c n . r r c ,l o S r c l ( ' o n q r c \ \ . " r r c r r r o r , r n d u n t ,
( l o r r s r c s s i ( ) r ) al ll c ' s c r r c h S c r v i c e . - f u n c l - 1 . I 9 ( ) 5 . I ) r t r f i r r t l r c 1 o . { t h . r r r r l l t } 5 r h ( l o r r q r c s s c s
f i o r n t l r c O o r r g r c s s i o r r rQ
l urrterlv ALrrrnlcs (1995 9u).
increirsinqlyless likely to be successfll: in the e.arlvro nrid-19tt0s,.{3
percent of cloturc votes qot thc rcc}risitcsixw votes to cut oll debatc; in
t h c l a t e l 9 U 0 sa n d e a r l y 1 9 9 O s , 3 9p e r c e r . rdti d ; i n t h e p e r i o d 1 9 9 3 - 1 9 9 8 ,
only 2lt percent did. . . .
Fronr the late 1930sto the lare 1960s,rvhen fllibusterinc was s[ronslv
associatedwith civil rights, frlibusrcrs$'ere rirned prinrarily at killing
legislation.This was also thc era of povverfll conrnritteechairnrcn leacling
quite ilutor)omouscortrrtrittces;nonqcrlnrne .rrnendrnentswere ntost farttously used by lerders to circulllvel)t rec:ilcitrant conurlittees. Thus,
Majoriry Leader Lyndon Johnson oflered the 196o civil riehts bill as a
nonqernraneanrendnrenton thr. lloor to a bill aidinq an inip:rctedschool
district in Missouri; the Judiciary Conrrnitree chaired bv SenatorJanres
Eastlandof Mississippi,an unrelenrins tbe oicivil riqhts. refusedto reporr
such leqislation.
With the growth of Senate individualisnr and senators' increasing
exploitation of their prerogativesunder Senirtcrules, tl-reusesto rvhich
senrtors put their powers nrultiplied. Killing leqislation conrinued ro be
the ainr in nrany crses, but filibustering also canre to be r.rsedalrriost
routinely to extract concessionson legislrtion. Seltttors as individuals
increasingivemplol'ed nongernraneallendrlrentsto pursue their personal
agendas,often forcing votes on therr issuesover and or,er during a Con-
fhe "(r0 Vote Senate"
165
qress.Also oll the rise has been extended-debrte-basedobstructionisnr
tl.rlt appearsarrned at killing or rvcakenins lceislation but actually is a
tornr of position taking-intendccl to rtrakea statelllcntabout a senltor'.s
st:rnceand its intensitl'.Targctine one ntc:lsurein orclcr to extrtct concessionson another,sonretinresknou'n ashost:rgetaking, hasbeconreincreasrrrrllvtiequent. With the grorvth of plrtrsen polarization, the rnrnorities
rn:rkinguse ofSenate prerogativesare nrore often orqanizeclpartisln ones.
In the 1990sespecialh',exploiting Sertrteprero{ativesto rrtcnlpt to seizc
.rqcndacontrol tionr the nr:rjoritv p:irry has beconre :r kev rrrinoritv-pf,rtv
\tri.rteg)"
Certlnlv since the dcvclopnient oi the indiviclu:rlistSenate. sclt:ltors
.rs individuals have used extenclcclcleb:rte,dircctly ancl indirectlv, to try
to kill lesislation that they stronglv oppose, and they continue to do scr
tochri . . .
Sincc the 1950s,thc Senatchasdonc r.r-rost
of its u'ork through unlnirlrousconsent rgrcclncnts (UClAs). lly unaninrousconscnt,scniltors:lgrcc
to brins a bill to tl-refloor, p.:rhapsto pllce sorttelilttits ol) tllc :lnreI)cfincnts
thrt ni:rv be offered or rhe lcneth of deb:ite on specificlrrrcndrlents, ;rrrcl
then nrrvbe to set a tinrc firr the fin.rl v()te. Sollrc UOAs lre highly
cllrboratelncl set out irqrcclllcntstrn thc cntirc floor consiclcrlti<;nof lr
bill. . . .
The prrn' leaders ovcrsce thc rregoti:rtion of unlninlous-coltscl)t
:lgreerlrentslnd lre deeplv involvcd in thc' nlore contcntious crses.Thc
rrr.lorrry- :ind tl-rcrninorirv-prrrv secrct:rriesof tl-reSenate n()w :rre the
nlost in)portant staffersinvolved lnd servels clelrinqhousesanclasa point
oi continnous contilct betrveen the parties. Whcn tl-rernajoritv leader,
.rticrconsultationrvith thc relcvantcorrrnritteechairnrln. clccicles
he rvlrrts
to schedule:r bill, he nrav leavc thc neqoti:rtinrrof the :rllrecntel)tt() the
conrnrittee chlirnran, or he rrray take thc lced role hirnself. The rnore
.onrplex the political sitnation :rrrdthe nrore inrportant to the ptrty the
It'eislrtion rt issue.the nrore likelv the nrajorirv lcader is to tlkc the le:rd.
In either crrse,thc nrajorit,v-plrrv sccretarvwill bc consulteclto:rscert:rilr
n'hich senatorsh:ive indicated that thev \\'rlr)tto be consr,rltedbetore the
bill is scheduled. If r fi'llorv parw rnerrrber hrrsexpresscdoppositi()n to
the bill's being brought to thc tloor. ncgotiltions nray be necessarvt<r
'When
t.tke care of his concerns.
the nr{ori6' has :rn agreenlerlt it can
\upport, the rnajoriw ptrry secret:irvn'ill convcv it to the nrinoritv prtrty
\ccretar\: irt rvritinu, rvho u'ill givc it to the rrrinoriry leader :rnd the
r-elcvantrankinq nrinoriry nrernber.The nrinoriru-secret:rrywill :rlsocall
.urv senrtorson the lninori(' side u'ho havc'askedto be notified lnci rvill
tincl out their concerns. Eventuallt' the nrinoriw will resoonclu,'ith a
l(r(r
tsARI]ARA SINCLAIR
writtell counteroffbrand convey it to the nrajoriry through the secretaries.
This processr)rayqo through severalrounds. The ieadersrvili also sonretimes negotiate face to face. If and when thev reach a tentative agreetrent,
both partiesplrt out rr recorded nlessaseon therr "hot line" to all Scnate
offices.The rnessage
laysout the terrnsofthe agreenrentand askssenators
rvho have objectionsto call their leaderrvithin a specifredperiod of tir.r.re.
If there are objections, they have to be tlken care of. When every senator
is preparedto assentto thc unaninrous-consentagreernent,the nrajority
lcader takes it to the floor and rnlkes the request.
The two parry secrer:rriesrnainrain the lists of "holds." "A hold,"
ls one knorvlcdgeableparticipant explained, "is a letter to vour leader
telling hinr which of the nranv powcrs that you have as a senator you
intend to usc on :r given issue."A typicrl such letter. rrddressed
to thcrr
Malority Leader Trcnt Lott ancl copied to the nujority secretarv reads,
"l)elr Trent: I rvill ob.;ectto .rny rinre f,greL'lllentor unanirnous consent
request rvith respectto consideration of anv legislation or amendrlent
that involves_,
ls I wish to be accordednrv ftrll riqhts as a Mernber
of the Senatc to oller amcndnrents,debate and consider such legislation
or anrendrrrent.M), thanks and kinclest pers<lnalreqards." Each parry
sccrct;rryrrrarntains.r list of the "holds" placcd by sellatorsof his or her
party. Thc parrv secretarit'sconfer every rrrornins rnd tell eacl-rother
rbout errynerv holds on legislationor nonrinations.Thev do not, holr'ever.
rcveal the nanresof their nrenrbersthat have placed the holds.
The hold systeuris an infbrrrr:llprrctice, not r nlattcr of Senaterules,
rnd its history is nrurky. It nray rvell have begun assinrplv a way of nrakine
sure senatorswere notified before rnatters of special interest to thenr were
schecluled.Senatorsn'right want to be sure that thev were not otherwise
conrnritted, that thev were preparedfor floor debate or read),to ofler an
;trnentlrrent.Senatorsstrll askto be inforrrrcdbefbrc sorr)ethingof particular interestto thenr is scheduled;unlessthey are comnrittee or subcommitcee leaclerson the issueor othen!'ise knorvn players,they cannot count
on beinq colrsultedunlessthey nrake such a rcquest. These requestsare
\omecllnescalled"consults" and :lresonletimesjust lunipreduncler"holds."
Howevc-r, nrost "holds" are threats to object to a unanlnrous-consent
agreenrent,and ir-r a body that conducts nrost of its businessthrough
UCAs, that is in eliect, as a leadcrshrpstallbr said, "a threat to filibuster."
Visible filibusters are now just the tip of the iceberg. The Senatei
perurrssiverules have much nrore eflect on the lcgislativeprocessthrough
filibuster threatsthan through actual filibusters."Classic" filibusters,u'ith
the Senate in sessionall night. senatorssleeping on cots ol{ the Senate
floor, and fllibusterersrnaking internrirrablespeecheson the floor. no
T h e " ( r {t V o t e S c n r t e "
167
lonqcr occur. Holds are the "lazv mani filiberster,",t stafler conrplained.
Placed sorrretinresb1' stlff on their orvn initiative and sonretimesat the
instigationoflobbvists, "holds" require little effort or) the part ofsenators,
the st.rffer continucc-l,vet thev enort.t-touslvcorlplicate the legislative
process ancl not irrfiequently kill or severely 'uveakenworthy legislation.
Given thc secrecvsrlrrounding holds, no data on their frequency exist.
Horvever, intervier,v evidence stlggeststhat they are conlmon. One senior
lide's clairrr that "there lre holds on virtuallv evervthing" ntay be an
exaqgeratior),but the cor-nplaintsand frustration cxpressedby so nrany
senrtors antl aides indic:rtesthat holds lre :rn everycl:iyfact of life irt the
( o l ) t c l i l F ( ) r t r vS c t t r t e .. . .
Thus, often sinrplr.to get to the floor, l nleasllreutust cot.urtrandl
superrr.yorin. Whcrr titnc is especillly tight-befbrc r recess
sr.rbst:rnti.rl
:rnd at the cnd of :i session-a single objection c:rn kill lcsislatiorr.
li:r nr.rjoriw is rvillirrg to pxv thc price in titrtc lriti ittcottvcrtietrce.a
sinqlc scnatoror a hlndful crnnot stop :l nlajority fiorrr brinuillq r lrrcasure
it. Fortv-orte seniltors c:lll. With senrtors us
to thc lloor ancl px55l11g
lguressivcly',
inclividulls :rnclcollectivclyso ',r'illingto use tlrcir prcr()gativcs
:ulvthinr.Icontenti()r.ls
nlust collll)and sixtv votcs in <lrderto pass."We've
dcvelopcclu'h:rt I c:rll thc (rO-r'oteScnrte,'rt lottgtinre'prrticipar)t stid.
"We hrrvel lot oicloturc votes, but not a lot of succcssfulclotr.rrcvotcs,"
he ct-l.rtinued."So lonq ls the nrinoritv sticks toscthcr lnd hls l-tt)-plusl
votcs, thev c:ln prevcnt that." . . .
-fhc
Senrrtc.thcn. hns bccortte a rrr:5orchokc point in the lcqislrtive
p r o c e s s . . . . l ) u r i n g t h c 1 9 9 0 s n o t o n l y c l i c ln r u c h r r r o r e l e q i s l a t i o nf a i l
enrctnlcnt, br-rtth.rt u'hich did rvasnruch rrrore likclv to be stoppcd in
the Senlte than in the Housc. Thc con-rbinltion oisclrrtors incrcasinlaly
exploiting their preroqativesurrclerSenltc rules with high pertis:rnship
h : r sc o n t l i b u t e d s i q n i f l c i n t l yt o t h e d e c l i n i n g r r t c o l ' t n r c t r ) ) c n t .
Wl-rat evalr.rative
conclusionscrn be drawn frortr this? Legislativeacconrplishnrcntciu)rlot bc cqulted rvith the nunrbcr or thc pcrcentageof
rnajor rneasuresenacted. Whatc'ver one'.snotions oi gooc'lpr-rblicpolicy,
one u'ill flncl bills killed in the Sen:rteu'hose tiite one benrortttsrnd others
for rvhich olie :lpplirudsthe result if not thc' ttteansbv rvhich it canre
abor.rt.Furthernlore. the Senatecloesstill function asr leqislrtllre;it passes
esscrltiirlleqislrtion such :rs :rppropriationsbills, though sonretintesrvith
dillrculry.
Yc'tthc cornbinltion oipartisanship and indiviclullisnr does nrake the
legislativeprocessin the Senate fiagile and subject to breakdorvn. Given
::,lj15:
:',H,:]:*
::l
:r,1
ffi:,r'.U
,i;:.'
l:i:'
:il:"Hn:'
[:,,::
MICHELE SWEI\S
168
prevent a nrajority fronr working its rvill. ln such a bodl', p:rssineleeislation
is harderand blocking action easierthal in a ntajorit:irianbodv; nrinorities
connland enornlous bargaining leverage,especiallvrvheu tittle is tight,
and intensiry counts for more itr the legislativeprocess.Thc "60-vote
Senate" posesa significantbarrier to the ellactllrentoileeislatior-rand to
policy char.rge.The existence of a second pou,'erful and indcpendent
legislative chanrber has ah'u'ayscor-rtributed to the stattls quo bias of the
American political systenl;the wavs in r.vhich that unique chatltber has
evolved in receut decadeshave aruplified that efc'ct. . . .
26
MICHELE
SWERS
Frorn lf'fte Diference WonrcnMake
()l R(Pr(s(tttdtilt'sutd (ltt'
Thc "dilJi'rur(' ut()ttt(ttttrakc" itt tlu' HLtusL'
('xdtnph.'\
{.sirrgttt,ttt)t
is a lti.qdifJi'r,:ttrc.
Sutdt(,s(ltol(trLIkhdc Srlcr-s-/irid.r,
|totlt tln' u',t1'
of -funalc /t'gi.sl,rtor.s
-fntnt tlrc pdst d('(dd(, SItt'r.t r/i.srtt-s-st'.s
n'fltrt tlu:ir
irr (,irrtqrt'-i's
u,ttmut utdidilts mnrpd|qnturd tltt u\t)' ttt(tttt('tt
ltavt'lt(omt ittrltort,rrtt
Funlt lt,qislattrrs
thc vicutsthty 1v11,1.
gcndcrthrou.gh
bttth Dunttcrtltsdnd Rrlnlilirarts (),r i-{j,r('.\r,l,l(itr{-/i()trl
spokesptttplt.fitr
lit il tlt'ntrt'
gun ct)ttr()lttt rur'lfarcrtlitrnt to tax poli(y. l'irlt'.r,trf'coltr-rt',
fll(rtl,{')'(),r/i
-rlrr.r.{r-r
5tl't'r-s
o.ftltc partics'goal()f(tttrdilin.qu)ont('tlsttp1()rtcr-s.
,t
distittrtivr
i.s.sttt'-r
to
r.ortgr-{-{i(),r(l/
hrin.q
lcgisl.ltors
utont('il
sultporttrs,
.just
Stt't'r-s
partl attd ltolitirs.Itt tlrt' 1'1',16,tfit'r
poitrtttf uicw that toes bt'yLntd
ttt
lns cttttttrttrt'd
irl Coriqrc.r-r
&)mplctcdlu'r rtscarch,thL'rolt'(t-llt'()ttt('tt
irt
tltis
Lt
pLtrt)'
u4ip
(D-CA),
rittd
d\
groar. Nirlt' that N(ln(y Pdosi
lt'ttdu itt tftc Holt.tt'. S(ttdtor Hilliry
st'lcditvr,brcanr tlrc DL'mttrrtttic
but slrcrtrtaittll'
Clirttotr fD-Ny) didn't mdkt'ir irtnr Stt't'r-i'r/i-scrl.r-siort,
rtwld lnve, ds tt ul)ntan lqqislatorrt'|rcis n,:lkin,gt diffi'rutrt.
C)N OcrcxEI\ 20, 1999, a srouP of largel,v l)entocr:rtic
women took to the floor of the Housc oiRepresentltives to sLlpportall
amendment by Congresswoman Patsy Mink (D-HI) that s'oulcl reslore
funding for gender equiry prouranrsto a llepublican bill reruthorizing
parts of the 1965 Elenrentary and SecondarvSchools Educatior.rAct. As
evidence of the continuing need for gender equity prorlratns'Clorlgresswonlan Stephanie Ti.rbbsJones (D-OH) ctted rvotrlen's lttlclerreprcsetrtation in Congress. She proclainred, "\)VoIlrenneed to be encour;rqcclto
Frorrr The DifferenreWonten tlake
169
be rieht hele on rhe floor . . . thev need to think about how can we be
lrcre on the floor of the U.S. Consress talking about issuesthat in-rpact
the entire colllttrv and only tifty-seven of us are wonren."
(lonsressrvonran Tubbs
Jones\ colnnlents irrtplv that electing nrore
\\'onren to Congressu'ill not just achieveequtliw but also influence the
rlnge of issuesconsicleredon the national agendaand the formulation of
policv solutions. She is nor alone in her belief that electing nlore women
u'ill have a substantivepolicy irnpact. Nunrerous rvomen'.sPolitical Action
(lonrnrittccs (PACs) raise rtroney to elect liberal or conservatlvewonlen
c:urdidates.For exlnrple, rhe Women in Senateand House (WISH) List
raisesnronev fbr pro-choice Republican wourcn, rvhile the Susan B.
Anthony List supports pro-life womcn. ln the 2O(X)election cycle, Early
Money Is Like Ycasrls(EMILY\) List raisecl$21,201,339to supporr prochoice, I)enrocratic wonlen, thus niakins it one ofthe leading fundraisers
.lnrong all PA(ls. Sonre worncn clndidates even point to their gender as
onc ofthe reasonsvotcrs should elect thenr. Announcing her candidacy
tbr rhe Scnrtc in l99ii, Bl;rnche Llrrrberr Lirrcoln (l)-AI{) proclainred
t]rlt she rv:is runninq bccause "nearly one of everv thrcc senatorsis a
nrillionlire, but therc :rrc onlv flve rnothers." Sinrilarly, Patry Murray
( l ) - W A ) l : r u n c h c chl e r ' l ( J 9 r S c r r a t cc . r r i i p r r s n . l s" j u s t I n l o l n i n t e n n i s
shoes.". . .
Horv inrportant is it to havc u (longrcss that "looks like Anrerica"?
l)o rve ncecl rnore \\:onlclt as rtrothers in Clonqrc.ss?l)o rve need ntrtre
\\'onlell as tvonreti?. . .
. . . lMlrny l)enrocratic and nroderatel\epublicrrn wonlen clainr that
thcl' do ti'cl a specill rcsponsibilit,vto rcpresentwonlen in tl-reircornnrittee n'ork, rnd thcv do lobb.vrnele corrrnrittcele:rdcrsto take ir.rtoaccourrt
:r policvls potential irnpact on wonrcn. For examplc, Marge l\oukema
(l\-NJ) explainecl:"lJut I have to tell yor.r,rvhen I got to Washington, I
tbund th:rt sorneof thc 'lvonren'.sissues-the f anrily issues'-weren't being
.rddressedbv the nren in po."ver.Things like child-supporr e'nforcenrent
:rnclrr'onren'shealth issueslnd farnily s:ifetyissues.It wasn't tl-ratthe rnen
r','ereopposcd to thcsc issues-thev Just didn't gct it. They were not
sutilcientlv lrvarc oithenr. So I realizecl,in nr:rnv inrportant areas-if we
\\'onlen in governrnent don't take action, l1o one else will."
Additionallv in interviervs, borh l)cnrocraric and l\epublican rrien
and u,onren expresscdrhc belici rhat worrrcn and rninorities brins a
different perspectiveto thc policl' proccss,and it is intportant to have
these sroups rt tl.redecision-nrakinstable. M:rnv of the l\epublican and
I)enrocratic \\ionrcn rvho have held parw leadershippostsalso feel a sense
of responsibiliw to representwonren. For exarnple,in her consressional
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
