Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress may be broken – but it’s not lazy

Opinion

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.

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

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less