Congressional Committee Simulation:An Active Learning ExperimentAndrea Ciliotta-Rubery, SUNY-BrockportDena Levy, SUNY-Brockport

A s many universities are pres-# \ su red to maintain high levels ofacademic instruction with fewer andfewer resources, faculty often findthemselves teaching not only largerclasses but also those outside oftheir areas of specialty. SinceSUNY-Brockport has only sevenpolitical scientists to cover morethan 20 courses every semester, Ioften find myself teaching a fresh-man introductory course in Ameri-can politics even though my spe-cialty is political theory. While I wastrained to teach American politics, Ioften find myself wondering whetherI present the general material withthe same interest and energy as I dothe more specialized material cov-ered in my theory courses. For thisreason, I began to seek new ways toenliven the American class. I felt itwas especially important to enticefreshmen to become interested andinvolved in a course that many viewas a general education requirementand nothing more.

To increase students' interest inand engagement with the coursetopic and to offer them hands-onexperience with the difficulties andrewards of the legislative process, Ideveloped, with the help of my col-league Dena Levy, who specializesin American politics, a congressionalcommittees simulation. We chosethis topic largely because studentsresponded negatively to the standardtextbook explanation of how Con-gress functions. We also felt a con-

Andrea Ciliotta-Rubery is an assistantprofessor of political theory at SUNY-Brockport. Her research focuses on Ma-chiavelli's impact on Christianity and gen-der.

Dena Levy is an assistant professor ofAmerican politics at SUNY-Brockport. Herresearch focuses on congressional politics,with an emphasis on women and minori-ties.

gressional simulation would changestudents' perceptions that represen-tatives did little work of any impor-tance. We wanted students to appre-ciate the difficulties present inwriting, negotiating, and passing re-sponsible legislation. Moreover, webelieved that if students could cometo understand the challenges ofmeeting constituent and partisandemands and dealing with compli-cated policy issues, they could de-velop a more realistic view of thelegislative process. In the final analy-sis, our goal was to allow students todiscover on their own how Congressoperates by participating in a com-mittee simulation.

Foundations and FormatWe implemented the simulation

during the fall of 1999 in our respec-tive sections of Introduction toAmerican Politics. Because my classwas larger, I was able to divide theclass into four groups, with twogroups serving as independentHouse Commerce Committees andthe other two as House JudiciaryCommittees. Levy was able only toorganize her class into one grouprepresenting the House JudiciaryCommittee. We established identicalcommittees so we could checkwhether the legislative outcomeswere similar in both classes. More-over, we specifically chose these twocommittees because they were bothpolicy committees, that is, becausethe members of the Commerce andJudiciary committees are driven byspecific issues which, when turnedinto legislation, have long-term im-pact (Deering and Smith 1997, 72-73). Policy committees in the Houseinclude Judiciary, Foreign Affairs,Education and the Workforce, andCommerce. As committee members,students, like their real-world rolemodels, would have difficulty balanc-

ing their political and ideologicalconcerns. Additionally, the high lev-els of "fragmentation" common tothese two policy committees wouldfurther complicate the deliberativeprocess; various outside groupswould put pressure on members toyield to a variety of issues and needsrepresented by these broad policycommittees (Deering and Smith1997, 88).

Once students were broken upinto groups, they were given a pieceof proposed legislation for consider-ation. The first bill, "The PublicSmoke-Out Act," was assigned tothe two Commerce Committees. Forpurposes of simplicity, we assignedthe bill directly to the full committee(Barone and Ujifusa 1987, 1585). Ina more sophisticated simulation, thebill could initially be assigned to anappropriate subcommittee. The billread, in its entirety, "As of the year2000, all restaurants, businesses, andschool campuses will be smokefree." The two Judiciary Committeesreceived the "The License Not ToKill Act" (Dewhirst 1997). This billread as follows: "As of the year2000, all persons who wish to pur-chase a gun must obtain a licensefrom the Federal Government. Thiswill entail successfully completing awritten test, background check, andpsychological evaluation." We choseto write the legislation for the com-mittees for two reasons. First, wewanted the language of the bills tobe extreme and controversial, mak-ing the negotiating process difficult.Second, since none of the studentshad any exposure to the legislativeprocess, we thought it best to pro-vide them with a starting point.

Students were given two weeks toresearch all aspects of their legisla-tion, but were not told whether thecharacter they would be playing sup-ported or opposed the bill. We in-cluded this element of ambiguity for

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 847

several reasons. First, we wantedstudents to do balanced and com-prehensive research. We feared thatif they knew too much about theircharacters, (e.g., their party, funders,years in office, etc.,) they would fo-cus their research efforts to the ap-propriate position on the bill. Sec-ond, we wanted students to beprepared to understand their oppo-nents' views and to realize that fewissues are ever simple or clear cut.Third, we wanted students to studyboth sides of their issue before theymade a personal decision as towhich was the correct view. We alsohoped they would recognize thattheir personal beliefs would not nec-essarily guide their conduct in thecommittee proceedings. Dependingupon the social, moral, and eco-nomic needs of their constituents,members of Congress often have tosuppress their own views on mattersand vote for the interests of thosethey represent. In the end, our goalwas to have students appreciate thatwhat representatives may view as"right" may not be politically defen-sible and/or desirable to their con-stituents, especially on controversialpolicy matters.

After spending two weeks re-searching their assigned legislation,each student was given a character.The makeup of these characters andtheir committees reflected the basicpartisan makeup of the 104th Con-gress. For example, each JudiciaryCommittee consisted of 10 students,five of whom played Republicansand four of whom served as Demo-crats. One student served as a lobby-ist for the NRA. Ideally, given morestudents, further outside interestsand expert testimony would be awelcomed addition to the committeedeliberations. This same Republicanto Democrat ratio was set for theCommerce Committees: six Republi-cans, five Democrats, and a lobbyistfor R.J. Reynolds.

Students received their member"personalities" one week before theactual simulation (see Appendix fora description of Commerce Commit-tee members' personalities).1 Wemodeled the personalities upon thevariables Richard Fenno identifiedas most important for influencingthe outcomes of committee debates:

"member goals, environmental con-straints, strategic premises, decision-making processes, and decisions"(1973, xiv). We put a particular em-phasis on member goals and envi-ronmental constraints. According toFenno, members seem to be moti-vated largely by "reelection, influ-ence within the House and goodpublic policy" (1). He further notedthat members tend to seek out thosecommittee assignments most likelyto facilitate their achievement ofsaid goals. In practical terms, then,members who wish to impact broadpolicy decisions are likely to choosea policy committee like Judiciary orCommerce. Those most concernedwith reelection will seek constitu-ency committees like Agriculture orInterior, which will enable them todeliver tangible programs to theirdistricts (Deering and Smith 1997,64).

For the most part, we adhered tothese patterns when developing thepersonalities of our committee mem-bers. However, we also created somecharacters who did not feel comfort-able with policy issues and whowould rather have preferred to serveon constituency committees or"prestige committees" like Appro-priations or Budget. Other studentlegislators were to view such mem-bers as committee "misfits," whoviewed their presence on these com-mittees as troublesome. Studentsplaying the unhappy representativeswere instructed to avoid all contro-versy that might endanger their ten-ure in office. We thought that thepresence of the miscast representa-tives, though rare in the real House,would add some controversy andinterest to the deliberative processof the committees.

Each member's tendency to sup-port or oppose the proposed legisla-tion rested largely on past experi-ences and how said experiencesshaped their future goals. For exam-ple, our gun control bill was intro-duced by Ms. Hale, a liberal Demo-crat from California, whose childwas killed in a random act of vio-lence at a fast food restaurant. Sheran on a gun control platform andhas sought to shape policy on thismatter. However, Ms. Hale wouldlikely meet some challenge from Mr.

Sorenson, a fellow Democrat fromTexas, who serves as the highestranking Democrat on the JudiciaryCommittee. Mr. Sorenson, a long-time hunter, receives NRA contribu-tions and has many constituents whosee the right to bear arms as pro-tected by the Second Amendment.He is a moderate on all policy mat-ters and would prefer that this billsimply go away, especially given thatmany of his fellow Texas officials areRepublican.

In order to ensure that students'policy decisions would be their own,we opted to create wholly fictitiouscharacters. We feared that assigningstudents the names and backgroundsof actual representatives would leadthem simply to follow the example(i.e., votes) of the actual representa-tives. This would provide studentswith the full opportunity to grapplewith the difficult balance betweenconstituent demands and personalviews.

On each committee, the chair andranking member of the minorityparty were asked to use their senior-ity to either suppress or bolster sup-port for the legislation before theircommittee. To make these students'jobs particularly difficult, we pro-vided chairs and minority leaderswith information on why the pro-posed legislation would be very at-tractive or unattractive to their con-stituents and also asked them to usetheir own policy views to influencethe committees' treatment of thebills (Fenno 1973, 77). In short, wepresumed that the chairpersons, allRepublicans, would exert "negativepower . . . the ability to defend thestatus quo in the face of those whofavor change" (Deering and Smith1997, 6). This, of course, is accom-plished best by either doing "noth-ing" or making sure the bill neverleaves committee. Similarly, we pre-sumed the ranking minority leaders,all Democrats, would exert "posi-tive" power, employing all measuresnecessary to sway colleagues to votefor change, contrary to their earlierpolicy views.

Finally, the student legislators hadto deal with students cast as lobby-ists from RJ Reynolds and the NRAas well as the knowledge that theClinton administration supported

848 PS December 2000

stricter gun control and more re-strictive public smoking laws, whilethe majority of the members in thefull House did not.

OutcomesStudents met for two class ses-

sions (approximately three hours) todeliberate in full committee. In myclass, both Commerce Committeespassed modified versions of the gunbill, and only one of the JudiciaryCommittees passed a modified ver-sion of the smoking ban. The secondJudiciary Committee decided to killthe bill completely. In Dena Levy'sclass, the committee ultimatelypassed a much modified version ofthe gun control legislation, but on astraight party-line vote. At the endof the exercise, students handed inwritten reports that included boththeir research and commentary onthe difficulties and concerns raisedduring the committee hearings. Toour satisfaction, many of the con-cerns students reported were thosewe hoped to raise.

We expected that partisanship,constituent demands, the influencewielded by the chair, and the deter-mining influence of lobbyists wouldprove fundamental to the legislativeoutcome. To our satisfaction, theydid. For example, the chairs of bothmy two Judiciary committees playeddecisive roles in determining theirbills' fates. While both shared simi-lar concerns regarding the psycho-logical exam and its prohibitive cost,only one Judiciary Committeepassed a modified version of the bill.Where the bill was defeated, thestudent playing the chair effectivelyinvoked party loyalty, raised fears ofincreased costs to taxpayers, anddeployed compelling data on lowand falling crime rates in "right tocarry" states to stop the bill at com-mittee. Most importantly, this stu-dent chair managed the debate bylimiting members to certain topicsand moving on from issues when hebelieved enough had been discussed.This powerful managerial style,along with persuasive data and astrong personality, ensured the de-feat of this Democratic bill.

The variables of partisanship andconstituent demands were seen

largely in my colleague's JudiciaryCommittee. Initially, students fromboth parties came to agreement inamending the language of the bill.The Republican majority used theirnumbers to persuade the Demo-cratic sponsors to eliminate the psy-chological testing requirement fromthe bill by indicating they might sup-port a limited version of the bill. Inthe final vote, however, both Demo-crats and Republicans toed theirparty's line, with Democrats failingto support a bill they consideredincomplete without requirements forpsychological exams and Republi-cans failing to support a bill theybelieved to be unnecessary andoverly intrusive.

Moreover, members from bothparties expressed concern over themeaning of certain language in-cluded in the bill and how suchbroad language might be misinter-preted by constituents. Dena Levynoted that students in her JudiciaryCommittee spent a great deal oftime defining the term "gun." Fear-ing that their constituents might in-terpret the legislation as being appli-cable to such things as water gunsand flare guns, student legislatorswent to great lengths to include lan-guage specifying which gun pur-chases required licensing. Students'attention to minutiae accurately re-flected that of actual legislators whomust try and accommodate constitu-ent concerns.

In my class, a particularly persua-sive and dynamic NRA lobbyistplayed the principal role in ensuringthe defeat of the gun legislation.The lobbyist's presentation of con-clusive data combined with shrewdapplication of financial pressure,enabled him to convince Republi-cans to vote against the bill. The billpassed the other Judiciary Commit-tee and those committee membersnoted that the NRA representative'stestimony and input had little to noimpact on their final decision.

Afterthoughts/Recommendations/ andStudent Reactions

The purpose of this simulationwas to provide students with first-

hand experience in the art of legisla-tive compromise. Having studentsserve on policy committees and de-bate highly contested social issuesallowed us to expose them to thechallenges of meeting constituentdemands, responding to party pres-sures, and answering to their ownideological convictions while at-tempting to formulate sound policyon issues the public views as impor-tant. To our delight, students ac-knowledged dealing with all thechallenges named and uniformly re-marked that the committee simula-tion was one of the most substantivelearning experiences of the semester.

As part of a post-simulation ques-tionnaire, we asked students "Didyou learn anything about the com-mittee process through this simula-tion?" On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1representing strong disagreementand 5 strong agreement, studentsgave a mean response of 4.32. Inwritten responses to this question,students often expressed how diffi-cult it was to compromise. Accord-ing to one student in Dena Levy'sclass, "I learned how intricate andinept the process is. It allowed meto have more respect than I alreadydo for the process and for the mem-bers; how they make decisionsthrough various obstacles on a day-to-day basis." When asked if theywere surprised by the outcome ofthe exercise, students gave a meanresponse of 2.87, suggesting thatthey were somewhat surprised butnot fully. Asked if the exercise wasuseful, the students' mean responsewas 4.43, suggesting again, a veryhigh level of approval.

Finally, we asked studentswhether they had any suggestionsfor improving the simulation. Here,the responses were few but similarin nature. First, and most com-monly, students asked for more timeto negotiate. Second, some thoughta bigger role for outside groups,such as lobbyists and expert wit-nesses, would make the delibera-tions even more interesting. Finally,and most pleasingly, many studentssaid that no change was necessary,as they learned a great deal fromthe simulation as it stood.

Of all of the responsorial data, webelieve the most important to be the

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 849

rating of 4.43 for the usefulness ofthe simulation. While my colleagueand I had hoped that students wouldrefer to what they learned in thesimulation occasionally, we had noidea that the exercise would providethe most significant and applicablelessons of the term. After the simu-lation reports were handed in, weconducted a forum during whichstudents asked questions about ac-cess of lobbyists, their influenceupon staff, the amount of time allot-ted to representatives to debate, theresponsibilities of the chair, and therules governing a committee. Whenanswering their peers' questions,students related their own experi-ence in committee to these generalHouse rules or patterns. Even afterthe classes dedicated to Congress,my colleague and I intentionally andunintentionally integrated simulationlessons into lectures on campaignsand elections, interest groups andPACs, parties, and the presidency.For example, during a class discus-sion about the role of interestgroups, one student commented thathis character received money fromR.J. Reynolds in his last campaignand wanted to know what the stan-dard donation was to a congressper-son during an election year andwhether donations were directed toone party exclusively. This type ofquestion was common throughoutthe course.

Structural ChangesWhile this simulation was de-

signed to expose freshmen to thebasics elements of legislative com-promise, we believe it can be easilyexpanded for use in upper-levelclasses. First, we observed that thetone of the committees was oftenshaped by the personalities of thechairpersons. We randomly assignedthe chair position, which we still rec-ommend doing, but acknowledgethat it may be helpful to providechairs with a list of "backgroundpowers" they could refer to whileshaping the content and direction ofthe bill. For example, in Congress:Games and Strategies, Frantzich andSchier argued that chairs seem totake one of two roles. They either"place themselves at the center ofthe policy vortex, introducing legisla-

AppendixPersonliries for Members of the Commerce CommitteeMS. JONES-Democrat

Liberal from New York CityPresbyterianServed six terms; won last election by a65% marginFormer public defenderADA rating: 93%Married; 3 children; husband is a pro-fessorGoals: She sought out a constituencycommittee and is very interested in serv-ing the public. Very interested in bring-ing home legislative packages that im-prove urban life. She ran on theplatform to make New York City livableagain.

MS. HALE-DemocratCo-sponsored the BillLiberal from CaliforniaServed 2 termsLast election was very close: 50%-49%First election was close also: 51%-48%Ran on a platform of gun controlAgainst the death penaltyChild killed in a robbery at a fast foodrestaurant by a man with a history ofpsychiatric problems who used an un-registered gunDonors to campaign include CatholicsAgainst Violence and Emily's ListMany ACLU members contributed toher campaignFormer school teacher; husband stillteachesCatholic

MR. SMITH-DemocratCo-sponsored the billPhiladelphia-area moderateServed two termsTough on crimeBorn again ChristianHas received money from Christian con-servative groupsDoes not like controversial policy issuesKnows his name on the bill will be aproblem with liberal "rights" activists indistrict. However, tough solutions toinner-city crime.

MR. SORENSON-DemocratTexasHighest ranking Democrat on the com-mitteeServed 10 termsModerateBill likely to be unpopular back homeHe is a big hunter; represents a ruralpart of TexasNRA contributes to his campaignTexas filled with Republican officialsHis profile is so moderate that he al-most fits a Republican description bet-ter.

MR. MORANLobbyist for the NRAGood friends with Mr. Sorenson (D-TX).

MR. MARTINEZ-RepublicanCo-sponsor of the bill.Conservative, especially on foreign policyFirst-generation Cuban AmericanLawyer; former prosecutor in DadeCountyServed four termsVery secure seat: 67%-31%ADA rating: 15%Occasionally votes with Democrats onbilingual education and immigrationissuesLast year, tourists were killed by youthwith an unregistered gun in his district.Receiving some pressure about youthviolence

MS. PETERS-RepublicanModerate from St. LouisFormer administrator of the St. LouisPsychiatric CenterAdvocate for mental health patientrightsWon last election 54%-43%Now in second termMother of two; husband is a hospitaladministratorHas a nephew institutionalized forschizophrenia

MR. DONNELL-RepublicanConservative from ColoradoBig hunterNRA member and supporterHe represents the area of Coloradothat includes LittletonAnticipates a difficult reelection cam-paign. Expects that his opponent willexploit his affiliation with the NRA.

MS. ADAMS-RepublicanModerate from ArkansasChair of CommitteeServed nine termsVery concerned about budget issuesNot particularly motivated by policyWorries about debt; thinks statesshould carry more burden.Arkansas has had problems with somerandom shootings by children atschools.Knows of her state's reputation as apoor, almost rogue state.Represents a rural districtNRA contributes to campaignsMust manage the bill carefully

MR. SCHWARTZ-RepublicanConnecticutServed four termsSon held up with gun on campus at YaleStaunch conservative; but warms up ongun controlRepresents an upper-class district thatis fiscally conservativeSafe districtReceives contributions from conserva-tive groupsBig balanced-budget person

850 PS December 2000

tion and attempting to take fullcredit," or they "observe the battleand wait for a consensus to emerge"(1995, 133). If student chairs areaware of these two different ap-proaches to leadership prior to thesimulation, they would have the op-portunity to develop a chair's strat-egy. For this simulation, the chair'scontrol of staff may not have anyapplication, but his or her overallinvolvement, partisan pressure, andseniority may be used to pressureyounger members into complyingwith the chair and preventing thelegislation from ever coming out ofcommittee. Conversely, chairs maywish to do nothing overtly, allowingmembers of his or her own party tofight the nasty ground battles incommittee.

Beyond enhancing the role of thechair, other options may be includedin the simulation to enrich its educa-tional value. For example, beforethe simulation begins, the commit-tees could adopt their own unique

rules of conduct, including rules forhow votes will be taken and howlong the topic will be debated.Moreover, after the committeesmeet and deliberate, the class mayserve as the full House of Represen-tatives. This would allow for allkinds of interesting rules to be at-tached to the bills. For example,"germaneness" rules could be at-tached, making it hard for Housemembers to bring up topics or issuesunrelated to the subject matter ofthe bill at hand. Finally, if the billwas to make it to the full House, thesponsor(s) of the bill could serve ascommittee bill managers on thefloor, negotiating and clarifying thebill through opposition and addingamendments to appease concernedmembers (see Deering and Smith1997, 7-8).

Conclusion

The congressional simulationproved to be a unique opportunity

for both us and our students. Whilewe were given the opportunity to trya new active learning exercise thatallowed us to present old material ina new way, students were given theopportunity to experience the legis-lative process directly. This hands-onapproach seemed to make a lastingimpression, as many students notedthe great benefit of the simulation intheir year-end evaluations for thecourse. In the end, even our mostfar-reaching expectations were met,as students came to understand howlegislation is formed and to recog-nize the legitimacy of counter posi-tions and the restraining factors thatmake one adhere to an opposingview. Coincidentally, as a result oftheir simulation experiences, stu-dents completely revised their evalu-ations of actual congresspersons.Beginning the semester with theview that federal legislators didnothing, students ended the termsurprised at how much House mem-bers accomplish. For a freshmanclass, such a metamorphosis must beseen as a sizable accomplishment.

Notes

* We would to thank the United UniversityProfessions for their support of this project.

1 A complete set of profiles is availablefrom the authors (arubery@brockport.edu;

dlevy@brockport.edu).

References

Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa. 1997.The Almanac of American Politics 1998.Washington, DC: National Journal.

Deering, Christopher J., and Steven S. Smith.1997. Committees in Congress. Washington^DC: CQ Press.

Dewhirst, Robert E. 1997. Rites of Passage:Congress Makes Laws. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen inCommittees. Boston: Little, Brown.

Frantzich, Stephen E., and Steven E. Schier.1995. Congress: Games and Strategies.Madison: Brown and Benchmark.

PSOnline www.apsanet.org 851

This is your last chance'1 • - 2000 ~ - "

Texts and Cannons: The Statusof the "Great Books" inPolitical ScienceAriene W. Saxonhouse,University of Michigan

Political Theory in the 1980s:Perplexity Amidst DiversityWilliam Galston, University ofMaryland

Feminist Challenges to PoliticalScienceSusan J. Canvll andLinda M. G Zerilli,Rutgers University

Formal Rational ChoiceTheory: A CumulativeScience of PoliticsDavid Lalman,Joe Oppenheimer, andPiotr SwistakUniversity of Maryland

The Comparative MethodDavid Collier, University ofCalifornia-Berkeley

The State of QuantitativePolitical MethodologyLerry M. Bartels, PrincetonUniversity and Henry E. Brady,University of California-Berkeley

Comparative Political Parties:Research and TheoryKenneth Janda, NorthwesternUniversity

The Not So Simple Act of VotingRussell J. Dalton andMartin P. Wattenberg,University of California-Irvine

The New Look in Public OpinionResearchPaul M. Sniderman, StanfordUniversity

ORDER FORMn Please send me copies of Political

Science: The State of the Discipline II.• My check is enclosed for $ .

Charge my: Visa/MC/AmEx Exp. date:Card No.:

Copies discounted 50%, Now only $15 for membersDiscounted from $45 to $30 for nonmembers.

Add Postage and Handling as follows: $5.00 for U.S. Domestic orInternational Surface; $7.00 Canada; $15.00 International AirmailFor bulk purchase information, contact APSA.

NameAddress

Orders must be prepaid

City/State/Zip.

Daytime Phone#:

Return this form with check or credit card order to:Publications/APSA1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW

• Washington, DC 20036-1206

Expanding DisciplinaryBoundaries: Black, Latino, andRacial Minority Group Politics inPolitical SciencePaula D. McClain, University ofVirginia and John A. Garcia,University of Arizona

Citizens, Contexts, and PoliticsRobert Huckfeldt, IndianaUniversity and John Sprague,Washington University

Political Communication:Scope, Progress, PromiseDoris Graber, University ofIllinois at Chicago

Legislatures: IndividualPurpose and InstitutionalPerformanceMichael L Mezey,DePaul University

Public Law and Judicial PoliticsMartin Shapiro, University ofCalifornia-Berkeley

Political Executives and TheirOfficalsColin Campbell, S.J.,Georgetown University

Public Administration: The Stateof the FieldDonald F. Kettl, University ofWisconsin

Comparative PoliticsRonald Rogowski, University ofCalifornia-Los Angeles

Global Political EconomyJames A. Caporaso, Universityof Washington

Political Conflict, War, andPeaceJacek Kugler, The ClaremontGraduate School