Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress may be broken – but it’s not lazy

US Capitol

According to Congressional Management Foundation research, members of Congress average at least 60 hours of work per week.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

Fitch is the president & CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.

Americans have such a negative view of Congress in part because they are fed a steady diet of bad news about their lawmakers, and not all of it accurate. There are certainly an enormous host of problems plaguing the institution. But accusing your member of Congress of being “lazy” is neither fair nor accurate.

This sentiment was prompted by a headline: “Mad at UPS Workers Making $170,000? Congress Makes More and Works Less.” The article assessed congressional work as only the time the full chamber was in session – which is only a fraction of the work done by elected officials. This makes as much sense as assessing the work of a television reporter by counting how many hours she’s on air. In fact, Congressional Management Foundation research shows that while lawmakers work on average 70 hours a week when Congress is in session, they work close to 60 hours a week during recesses, or district work periods.


Most Americans have a fairly negative and justified opinion on how Congress performs. However, America rarely sees the full scope of Congress at work. Most of the work members of Congress perform is not in front of television cameras. In Washington they spend most of their time doing exactly what you would want them doing: legislative activity, such as attending hearings or working with colleagues. The majority of their time back home is spent on constituent activities: either meeting with groups of constituents or visiting local companies, nonprofits, and schools in their community.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Another surprising finding of the research on how federal legislators spend their time was the discovery that the majority of Representatives do not spend a lot of time fundraising for their campaigns. Lawmakers in tough re-election campaigns or in the House or Senate leadership spend an inordinate amount of time collecting donations, but that represents about 5 percent of Congress. The vast majority of members of Congress spend five to 10 hours a week on “political activities,” either raising money for their own campaigns, holding campaign events or supporting their colleagues.

Some years ago the Rasmussen polling company asked in a national survey if the public agreed with this statement: “Most members of Congress care what their constituents think.” Only 11 percent agreed with that statement. Yet, when members of the House of Representatives were asked in a survey what was the most important aspect of their job, the top answer, noted by 95 percent of respondents, was “Staying in touch with constituents.” Politicians cite both ethical and political reasons for maintaining a firm understanding of public opinion in their states. Lawmakers genuinely want to understand the nuance of public policy and how their decisions could affect their constituents.

For years I supervised interns who worked on Capitol Hill. At the end of their three-month stints, I always asked the same question: “What belief or stereotype about Washington and Congress was debunked during your time here?” The most common answer went something like this: “I was surprised at how much you people wrestle with trying to figure out the right thing to do, and how much you worry about the impact of your decisions on constituents.”

If you spend a little time in the real Washington – not the one you see on the front pages of newspapers or in the movies – you’ll come to the same conclusion.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less