May four. Executive Agencies to
Congress
We were I guess finishing up on some of the words and
concepts that were Mr. Rooney Goes To Washington for those
of you who remained and saw it. Some of you disappeared;
some of you didn't show. And weren't here any ways and
that's why I decided that one of two questions will be
strictly on Mr. Rooney goes to Washington so that the people
who weren't here gets screwed and those who were get
rewarded. That will teach you. We talk about contracting?
Did we? Yes. And then sunset laws? Did we get to sunset
laws? Just contracting and double dipping? Because we only
had ten minutes after the end? Yeah.
Well basically our topic is the executive agencies which
are often known as the fourth branch of government. Now
that leads us to two questions. Number one -- I did not
define the term fourth branch of government, did I? Nor
have I defined -- of state earlier. One of which I should
have defined, one which I still can define. The one I
should have defined previously and did not but it's on your
word list is the fourth estate. And the reason I need to do
that now is so that you don't confuse a fourth with the
fourth branch of government. So you got to be careful
because that's a tendency people have to mix up those kinds
of things easily enough.
The fourth estate refers to the media. The news media.
But I just don't give you to you, that's the way you're
going to memorize it, but I'd like to try and explain why we
refer to it as the fourth estate. Because the concept
becomes important even though I should have gone over it
earlier. Previous to the French revolution and for those of
you that are numerically directed, the French revolution
took place in 1789. Began -- previous to 1789 France itself
was divided into three estates. They were basically
classes. The first estate was the clergy, second estate was
the nobility, and then the third estate as one said was
everyone else. In reality it was the lawyers, the
professionals, the businessmen. Well, why estates? Because
each estate had its on rules and regulations and own
courts. So they had separate laws pertaining to the
individual estates. Was there a fourth estate? No. why do
we call the press the fourth estate? Because the press
often sees itself as being separate from the rest of
societies. They tend to think of themselves as having
certain rights and privileges that nobody else should have
because the press sees itself as -- and in sense it is the
watch dog of democracy, that it protects democracy by
revealing the abuses to democracy which it does do. But it
demands, certainly, rights that in most cases the courts
don't give.
For instance, the right to withhold sources as you know
they do have that right, but if it's conflicting with a fair
trial the press is ordered to reveal its sources even if it
won't. And in very famous case twenty years ago at Stanford
maybe it's almost 25 years ago now, the press the police
came into Stanford universities press with a search warrant
but didn't warn them ahead of time because they were afraid
of some of the documents they had on drug deals that they
were doing a story on would be lost. The Supreme Court
upheld the right of the police not to reveal to the press
that they're coming in with a search warrant if there's
going reason to believe that the evidence would be destroyed
or hidden. And that's the Stanford case which still upsets
the press because it feels that you should announce coming
in. Which of course police would do individually but will
not do and they are not going to knock on a door this is the
police they can actually go into somebody's house without
even warning if they believe that the drugs would be
destroyed, flushed down the toilet, or whatever without
having to let people know ahead of time. They don't have to
call and say we're coming over. But the press likes to
think they have this privilege. It doesn't. So forth
estate which is different than again from the fourth branch
of government.
The fourth branch of government refers to the executive
agencies. Every agencies generally known by its letters,
the IRA, the FDA, the FCC. We refer to them as the
bureaucracy, but also a term refers to them is the fourth
estate. I'm sorry the fourth branch of government, why?
Because they often act independently of the presidency.
They act independently of the legislature and they act
independently of the judicial system. Their job is to
interpret and carry out the law. When they're established
they're given tremendous leeway that allows them to
determine what the law says after it's been gone through
Congress after signed by the president and on after it's
been interpreted by the courts. On top of their ability to
interpret the law and the FDA is a good example of that
which drugs can be sold across the counter by prescription.
The FDA decides certain drugs -- such as Sudafed used to be
only a prescription drug. There have been a lot of drugs
that have been taken off the prescription list but they sell
in different dosages. You can't buy it in 60 milligram
tablets. You need a prescription for that. So you take
two. Same thing with Motrin. You can only by 200 milligram
pills across the counter, but if you get a prescription you
can get 800 milligrams. So you take four. That's all by FDA
internally. So it does that and there's the old story about
bureaucrats. Anyway we obey, but we do not comply.
What does that mean? How can they obey, but not
comply? Because they say they're carrying out the law and
then they stone wall saying they delay. So in reality they
don't comply. If they don't like something they just don't
do it. They're going to -- okay, we'll give the order to do
it and then paperwork gets lost and bureaucrats are
notorious for interpreting the law the way they want and
carrying it out when they think it's important. Okay? So
they a obey the law, but not necessarily really comply by
carrying it out. And they stay there, and they are
basically because they have what we call tenure. They have
civil service status which means it's impossible to get rid
of somebody working in the bureaucracy.
Now we've been talking with some of possibilities of
problems and some of the changes that go on in the
bureaucracy and some of words that we use. One of problems
we have with the bureaucracy is that once an agency is
considered, Mr. Rooney said, "It never goes out of
existence." it changes its letters. It changes its name,
but it stays on. Even when they were created for an
emergency and it has passed, it continues. Good example of
that was the department of energy. Created because of the
gas crises in the 1973 and '77 period. And at that point
they decided we better regulate it. Why? The question is
do we really need a department of energy in California?
It's not doing anything to keep our gas prices low or to
investigate it. Ronald Reagan ran on the platform said that
he was going to get rid of the department of energy and
education. Ronald Reagan came and went and we still have
the department of energy and the department of education.
So it's once they're established they're almost impossible.
So for that reason Mr. Rooney built in a termination date.
That is what we call sunset laws.
A sunset law is a law that has a built in termination
date. Meaning a date when it's finalized when it ends. If
it's necessary you recreate it. Usually, almost all sunset
laws set the determination date for five years but they
don't have to. So a sunset law is a law that sun sets. It
ends at a certain point of time, usually five years. We've
had a few laws not necessarily agencies that have been
established with five year deadlines. If you recall I
mentioned the voter rights act 1965. The voter rights bill
had a five year termination. They sent in people to
southern states, 12 southern states, to make sure blacks
could vote and -- but it ended after five years. It was
reestablished. I think it's gone through five times that
they've reestablished and voted it in. They decide to keep
it on a five year basis to see when it will be necessary.
Many people feel that a lot of laws should have built in
termination dates because they sit on the books with no
purpose after awhile and often the danger of having laws on
the books is that sometimes they can be used arbitrarily.
Especially by police officers who want to pick on somebody.
They find these strange laws and people get busted for
them.
So, by the way, the term limits -- I'm not sorry -- the
line item vetoes that was given to president Clinton had a
five year termination. It was supposed to go out of effect
in 2003 and then they could decide whether they were going
to reissue it. However the Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional. So at this juncture a line item veto
would have to be passed as a constitutional amendment to
make it effective again, but it was term limited so we do
have a few lawyers, but in agencies, the point was that they
should sunset them. That they should have a five years
limitation and then if they're needed they're recreated.
A number of other words on your list, one of them is the
Peter principle. It is the concept that people are promoted
to their level of inefficiency in government in
bureaucracies that if you do a good job at one level and
they move you up because they're making the same salary. So
you need to have some sort of status. The status is getting
a promotion. Finally they move you up to a place where you
can't do the job anymore. But because you're civil service,
they can't get rid of you. So what happens in government
who were basically inefficient. They're incompetent, better
said. So how do they do their job? They hire people who
can do the job for them or they get contracts or
consultants. Translation, they get more computers,
secretaries, and it cost the government probably ten times
as much because these people can't do the job efficiently.
And they expand their empires so that they don't basically
sit around doing nothing, that they should have been doing.
The Peter principle. People are promoted to their line of
inefficiently is incompetency. It happens in business too
but in business if they're not making a profit and it's
costing the company money generally you get rid of person
until they've got something on you. It happened in my dad's
business. They had a secretary who had been with them many
years and she kept getting promoted up to the place where
she couldn't really do the job because they couldn't get rid
of her because she knew too much about the inner workings of
the business. So they kept her in that position paid her
basically to shut her up. And that does happen in the
business world. Quite often in fact.
Also on the list is a Parkinson's law. Parkinson's
law. Again, it's probably more prevalent in bureaucracies
but it exits in the business world. It is work expands to
fill time. Work expands to fill time. Meaning, that if
you've got a good job, you're not doing anything. You want
to keep the job, so you find things to do. It's amazing
some of the crap I get in the mail around here. Some
administrator has to find work to do, you know? We don't
need this stuff. Most of it winds up in the -- file anyway
but somebody feels they're important enough to do it; why?
Because they want to keep their job and have people working
under them so that they have an empire building which is
true of bureaucracy. The more people you -- the more
important you are.
It was interesting, a number of years ago it wasn't that
long ago, maybe five years because the person in human
resources has only been here since about '91. Well '92,
maybe. Well maybe six, seven years ago. In human resources
we had this gentlemen who was working there for a few months
and he found the job very boring because he didn't have any
work to do and he was not one of these people who felt he
could work and make it look important. So he got a new job
and he wrote a letter to the head of human resources and put
a copy to the board of trustees saying and I saw a copy of
it because it got circulated saying that his job was
meaningless and was not necessary that it should be done
away with. Now that's unique. He was telling the board
that his job was not needed and they could save the $40,000
a year whatever by not filling his post when he left. Drove
the woman who heads human resources nuts. Because it made
it look like she was not doing her job by having a job where
people weren't and so she went to the board and conned them
into believing that this guy was a disgruntled employee,
which he wasn't. He just didn't feel the job was worthwhile
and not only did she convince him that he was a disgruntled
employee and the job was necessary, she even convinced them
to add another half time position. So to a job that was not
necessary that should have been eliminated they wound up
with a job and half of people that were not necessary and
that happens when you don't have efficient people doing the
job. And so again Parkinson's law; work expands to fill
time. Tied very closely at times to executive agencies are
the interest groups because the job of executive agencies is
regulatory. They are to regulate various parts of the
industry and business and of course even unions. And did
their job is regulation, then the interest groups certainly
want to be careful of what, you know, what's happening. And
as you know interest groups have political action committees
that spend money for campaigns and interest groups also
higher lobbyists. Their job is to oversee what legislation
to make sure that it is favorable to the interest groups or
to make sure that no legislation is passed that is not
favorable.
Lobbyists are individuals whose job it is to oversee
legislation for the interest groups and in a sense to give
support to those legislatures either in Washington or the
state capital that is supportive of interest groups
interests in various ways. That means sometimes running
parties sometimes giving gifts sometimes giving them um,
free transportation. Sometimes taking them out in the golf
course taking them out to you know big places for lunch and
talking to them over lunch. To try and convince them that
they should vote one way or another. Lobbyists because they
were important to the interest groups the average salary for
a lobbyist is $400,000 a year. It is obviously a very
lucrative profession. Lobbyists for big companies like
General Motors make between a million and two million a year
in just salary. Their expense accounts are usually double
their income. They do have to register since 1946. Since
1946 lobbyists had to register who they're working for and
they do have to give their statement as to who they have
given gifts to and how much money they've spent and in
recent years the Senate and the House have actually placed
limitations on how much money or how large a gift a member
of house or Senate can get. One of the bits that caused the
speaker of house to resign was one of the things that
lobbyists continued to do is that they give you a speaking
engagement. Okay? And that meant that they hire you for 25
to fifty thousand dollars for an hour talk to the company
where all these people come to this convention. Well both
the Senate and the house is now limited the amount of money
you can take to about twenty to thirty thousand a year in
speaking engagements. Which means that they can no longer
make -- by the way the highest paid speaker of all times was
Robbert Dole. He was averaging about $200,000 a week in
speaking engagements. Before they put the limits on them
when he was in the Senate. That's a lot of extra money.
It's more than their salaries, obviously. With the
limitations on this this guy who was the speaker of the
house Jim Bright for a while since he was not allowed to
make that kind of money. What they did is he brought his
book with him Newt Gingrich pulled this bit too in part and
they would sell the book at the convention and it would seem
that the company was buying lots of additions to the book.
With Gingrich -- usually book companies give you ten percent
maybe fifteen percent at the most of the price that they
sell the book to the company for. Gingrich was getting
fifty percent of the cost of the sales. Nice little kick
back. He got fined ethical based on that one if you
recall?
Lobbyists not only work in Sacramento certainly some
major organizations not businesses necessarily, have
lobbyists who work in Hollywood. Their job is to convince
movie studios and TV studios to introduced material
pertaining to their interest in their film are TV shows. I
was listening to a speaker one time who was the vice
president for Norman Leader production, they did All In The
Family, Archie Bunker. More than the number of shows, Maud.
And she was telling us how the you know anti tobacco people
cancer prevention people who their lobbyists convince them
to do the show where got lung cancer from smoking and then
Edith Bunker got raped in one show because women against
violence. That they get more people to watch this and see
it and understand that rape is not a sexual crime based on
the show then they would if they did a full service kind of
what do you call it PBS special or any kind of special on it
because more people watch the sit coms and it -- but again,
lobbyists abound and independent film Mr. Rooney goes to
Washington you saw all of those companies and the last frame
there dealing with the companies different sounds you saw
Jesus Saves, saves but as many of the churches.
In fact speaking about lobbyists that was probably Bill
Gates' biggest mistake with Microsoft. He had only one
lobbyist in Washington and they were not giving money to
legislature for campaigns. He refused to. As you know,
Microsoft is being sued by the federal government for a
monopoly and the court says is still going on. Once the
court case had gone on for about a year Gates got smart and
he hired eleven lobbyists and has been giving money now for
political campaigns for legislatures. In the sense that if
you want to survive the federal government it means you got
to get the legislatures on your side and that means what we
often call the cozy triangle. It is sort of the like a
government menage a three. I think most of you heard the
word -- some of you don't know the meaning of it. It's
generally when three people are having sex together.
Usually two of one sex and one of the other. Sometimes they
bring in a third sex, I don't know.
Why were we getting thumbs up over there? Okay Alex are
you red? No? Couldn't have been too bad. The three people
in bed together in government are interest groups, who give
money to legislatures, so interest groups and Congress are
in bed together along with the executive agencies. Because
the heads of the agencies need the approval of the
Congress. And so the legislatures make sure that people who
were often favorable to the interest groups get appointed to
the executive agencies. So the three groups in bed together
again in government are interest groups, Congress, and the
executive agencies. The only difference being that instead
of screwing each other in a menage a trois, they're screwing
us. Cozy triangle.
I'm trying to think if there's anything else on the word
list dealing with executive agencies. More interest
groups. Or lobbyists. They have had to register but many
many people in government are not just lobbyists for
American concerned many people lobbyists for foreign
companies and foreign nations. Foreign countries often hire
people. For example the Japanese government was paying as a
lobbyists a guy name Ron Brown who later became Secretary of
Commerce in the Carter administration. He was killed in an
air plane crash in Peru a few years ago. But I think the
biggest scandal was Jimmy Carter was president. He had a
brother name Billy Carter and he became famous because he
decided to drink a beer because beer drinking and he became
Billy Beer and I think probably anybody owns a bottle of
collectors item.
Speaking about collectors item did you read about those
Star Wars figure and how much people are buying up waiting
in line all night long waiting to get into Toys R Us.
People spending eight hundred and fifty dollars on those
actions figures. God no so who's going to wait in line to
watch star wars. None of you are? That nuts, good. It
will be there for a while. Meanwhile, usually now a days
they're showing those things on six or seven screens anyway,
but you know the sound effects I can almost get with the
DVD. -- which with the computer generated graphics it
should have those parts are exciting. I'm sure the plot is
just worse than anything.
Meanwhile, back to our, um, lobbyists, our interest
groups and our executive agencies. Billy Beer Billy Carter
received a loan from the Libyan government so he could open
his business of a hundred thousand dollars. That's Kadofy
had loaned him the money? Why? Because he was the
president's brother which means that Kadofy knew that this
guy had access to the brother. The U.S. Government demanded
that Billy Carter register as a lobbyist for foreign
company. He had first refused but the courts rule that he
had to. Even though he said it was just a friendly loan.
Well there's know such thing especially coming from a
country that is not very friendly to the United States.
Well speaking about countries not friendly, it's very
fascinating to me that Jessie Jackson was able to pull off
what he did and that is to get the release with no condition
openly of the three American GIs. We haven't even released
the two Serbians we hold which is amazing.
(by student) It's not too surprising. It makes Clinton
look bad?
(by teacher) What do you mean because he's a Democrat? But
still surprising if I were -- I wouldn't release him.
(by student) But it's not really war.
(by teacher) well you know he's just trying to save face.
He's trying to keep his power. It makes sense!
(by teacher) you think so? I don't know. Maybe it does --
propaganda like crazy because I think partially what you're
saying has a little sense of validity is that Clinton is not
even getting support from Congress. So in making Clinton
look bad it may be a wise element if they're understanding
American politics. They may be reading it wrong but foreign
countries often do.
What I'm saying is last week Congress voted 213 to 213
which meant that the resolution to support Clinton's action
with NATO was defeated. Now it's a close vote but even with
his own democrats they did not support him in a NATO action.
The Congress also voted last week overwhelmingly and I may
have mentioned in this class to oppose any issuing of ground
troops. So basically order that if Clinton decides to use
ground troops they gets approval of the house and that's in
a sense where you may be right in the sense of
embarrassments where when the president of cypress went
there Congress hadn't taken a stand yet so it may be
something to say for it. Clinton is backing down in part he
appears to be willing to move towards a Russian solution so
there may be something. I said to my son when it first
started we'll declare victory and pull the hell out after
awhile even though it's not a victory. Well, this is why
one of legislatures and very interesting liven to this guy
in Congress argued that we must declare war because if we
don't ever declare war we have no backbone as a country. He
argued for example is that remember we lost in Vietnam and
certainly not go all the way in Desert Storm that we weren't
in war and if way had a war we would have gone all the way
because of the concept of winning is a war. I don't know
how valid that is to tell us the truth but interesting
argument. Again, backbone a strange word. Um, I'm not sure
it's exactly backbone. It's attitude sometimes in those
things. Politicians do see things differently. And every
time I hear that because it bothered me because that was of
course what brought Hitler to power in Germany was the argue
that the German politicians had no backbones and they sold
out world war one and the exploded during the 1920s and
early 30s because of whether it's true or not is another
story.
Well okay, I think we need to move onto Congress. I
think I covered the material and the interfaces are due
today. So, if you want to take them out.
Q Explain -- can you -- I don't understand the question,
um, why all politics can be local. Is that what it says?
A Isn't that sort of the first part of that the question?
Q I don't understand what's going on in Yugoslavia is
local to us. Part two I think.
A Well remember Congress isn't involved in Yugoslavia so
we wouldn't be related to Congress being local I'm not sure
what you're asking.
Q It says explain why all politics can be thought of as
local. So I don't understand the question itself?
A Anybody.
Q I think you were referring to local congressional
politics.
A Well more for congressional but the statement that all
politics were local would bring in the national politics so
the translation is how is all politics local means basically
that we are concern for ourself on a local level more than
we are in a world or national level. So the question then
comes to the point how is Yugoslavia local and the answer is
it's probably not, but that is why there aren't many of us
who don't give a damn about what's going on there. If I
were to ask this class how many of you really care what's
going on in Yugoslavia, deeply? Be honest. Nobody.
Absolutely amazing it's less than I thought. Because it's
not impacting us as such. Okay? Of course obviously um, I
have relatives in my wife's parents live in Oklahoma now
that becomes local to us you know for most of us okay what
the hell is a twister? A half mile to a mile large? That's
impossible to think of in my mind.
But, um, so that becomes local in a sense that for me
Clinton sending aid and declaring it a disaster zone means
something but to you the fact that he declared it disaster
zone is also pretty much irrelevant but if a earthquake it's
like it did in '89 and at that particular point hey folks
this is a disaster zone and we're concerned. We have a
human sense granted of people dying. We have a human sense
of the destruction but it doesn't become vital to our
existence and so that's what we mean by politics being
local. Our human concern is there and that is also knowing
that is why our administration has attempted to constantly
show Melosovich is the devil. The Darth Vader the --
whatever it is. If we can show them as threatening to us
here in California by making look like we've got somebody
whose going to lead into a new world war if we don't stop it
then it becomes local to us here. And obviously that's the
kind of thing that the Clinton administration has attempted
to and not been extremely successful in making it appear
that Yugoslavia is a threat to me living here in
California. That's why it's so difficult to become involved
in warfare which is done for human reasons or for humane
reasons. Did that help at all, Karen?
But yeah I mean my chapter is based on Congress and
therefore what I am mainly emphasizing is Congress being
local. And you know there are a lot of ways I can describe
it and I don't think I particularly use this example in my
book I forget which examples I use but a number of years ago
there was a scandal in Washington. This was a good 25 years
ago. When ten congressmen were accused of having sexual
relations with their pages. Pages are usually young people
from high school who were running errands and all of the
pages were sixteen but it was not illegal because in
Washington sixteen was the age of consent. Somebody in my
class was saying that in Hawaii fourteen is the age of
consent. Those Polynesians must mature a lot faster. But
in any case, sixteen was the age of consent well nine was
made against male politicians. The tenth was with a male
against a male. It happened to be a guy from Connecticut
who was a congressmen by the name of representative Stud. I
like the name Stud. Who by the way just decided in the last
election not to run again. Now, his district is a fairly
conservative area when it comes to that kind of morality
from that perspective and he was highly condemned in the
local press for not just because he was not an announced gay
he never brought forth his homosexuality and if you would
think that at that juncture this guy would be voted out of
office because of the action and let's call it sexual
harassment and it is when you're involved with somebody
who's working for you. Within limitations on that kind of a
nature depends because what's sexual harassment? In any
case he was reelected. And has been continuously
reelected. Why? Because he was chairman of the fisheries
and hatchery committee. What does that mean? It means that
that committee was vital to the people in that area. And if
they voted him out of office and brought somebody else in,
bringing somebody else in that person could not become
chairman because to be chair of the committee it's seniority
the people who's been there longest they couldn't even be
sure that a new representative could serve on the hatchery
and fisheries committee and because he had been bringing
home a lot of what we call pork, fat, getting a lot stuff
for the district, which meant jobs it meant money, they
decided that morality was second in their minds or at least
their interpretation of reality was secondary in their minds
to what was interesting and important to them their pocket
book. And that is very interesting a point to be made.
We have had numerous cases where politicians in the
middle of a term have switched parties from the republican
to the Democrat. The next time they also win. Always by
the same vote. As a different party. Now you would think
people were voting party but the point I'm making is they're
not. What they're voting for is what that person is doing
for the district. When they get knocked down it was because
they're not doing the job the people don't know them in the
sense that they're not bringing home the bacon. They're not
introducing enough pork barrel legislation. It is
legislation specifically defined for a legislatures
district. Okay? So yes. Congress is very local in that
sense. But so is all politics.
Any other questions on any of the interface questions?
How would you go about getting your bill passed? Would you
want it to pass your legislation?
Q Have a petition, collection from individuals, and/or
maybe joining to a protest march to get that bill passed.
Well protested march is possible. You may be pushing it,
yeah, the petition is probably first getting a bunch of
people supporting you, yeah. Please remember that you're
not a legislature, you're you, and you want a bill passed.
So you need to get support so that the legislature believes
that there is a reason for getting that particular
legislation put through. Anybody else? Well after you will
get a whole bunch of groups or interesting in the same thing
as you then you go ahead and contact your local
legislature. Yeah that and not only your local legislature
who may introduce it we found that you need to contact a lot
of other legislatures in different districts so try and
convince them so that that will get out of committee while
your legislature may do it to make you are happy it sits
there because not enough support so often and we had it
happen here on a bill that we wanted through Washington what
it was about was irrelevant perhaps but we call to find out
and the woman who was the secretary said very bluntly it's
not going anywhere unless you convince a bunch of
legislatures too and told us to start contacting other
legislative offices which was interesting. And that's a lot
of work if you want to push something seriously through
unless the legislature him or herself feels that they're
going to get something that's going to benefit them out of
it but please remember the point I keep making is that
because that incumbent the person in office is the
incumbent. Because that incumbent wants to be re elected
that incumbent knows he or she that he has to get things
done and make a name for him and most do that is why in the
house of reps, for the last forty years the average rate of
re election those people running for re election not
everybody runs for re election every two years you run for
re election, the average rate of re election is 95 percent.
95 percent. For the incumbent.
The lowest in recently was 1980 when Ronald Reagan was
running for president with the republican revolution. In
1980 of those running for re election only ninety percent
got re elected. Now obviously part of the reason that you
are getting reelected is because they're getting re elect.
What the hell does that mean? It means that interest groups
are willing to give the money to the incumbent rather than
to a challenger. Why give money to a challenger when you
knew the odds are strongly against them of getting
reelected? So if you want something out of government the
person to go through is the person in government. Okay?
The only time and basically almost the only time money is
given to a challenger is if the person in government speaks
out against that particular.
For example Pete Stark who is affirm support for and --
and very much opposes the rip offs by medical what they
consider medical rates and companies and HMO. Pete stark is
constantly being challenged by medical companies the money
is going against him. It hasn't hurt him, because he keeps
getting re elected by 66 percent of the vote any case
because of other things he does. Because he gets money from
other interest groups. And if you're not sure because it's
an equal race because two new people are running for the
president at that point they give it to both candidates.
Just in case. But in vast majority of cases the legislature
in office the incumbent is going to get the money so they
got more to spend first of all, second of all, they've got
the name recognition. People know the name of the pen in
office most of the time you don't and never even heard of
the person whose the challenger and third, they have um
their picture out there the visual, and fourth, they've done
things for people in the district who were willing to work
for them even if they're not of that party. Many years ago,
um a guy that used to train in our gym he was a member got
an appointment to west point by Don Edwards he came from a
very strong republican family but in the next election he
actually went and walked precincts for Don Edwards a
Democrat because he felt obligated the power of obligation
he wanted to reward him for getting him an appointment to
West Point. Okay? Part in parcel of the reality of why the
incumbent has the kind of power. So every time we hear
somebody say we are going to get rid of that incumbent
forget it, just doesn't happen.
I made my point with that story about A B-C-D-E-the
bumper sticker war I'm assuming you read my chapter anybody
with congressman Don Edwards versus Americas best
congressmen Don Edwards that's the reality of the situation
it's not what you can do for America that gets somebody
elected to office, it's what you do for me. It's what you
do for your area. And legislatures know that they make sure
that their office staff is cognizant to the fact that they
better be nice to their constituents being anybody that they
represent and going out of their way to try and at least
give the image that they're doing something for the
constituent when they go there. And a good legislature does
tend to get things done and introduces legislation to
support constituents needs. It doesn't always get through
but at least they try to push it. I know one that
frustrated Don Edwards was a frustrating one this older
couple had adopted their daughter's son because -- and the
couple was getting social security and even though they had
adopted this child officially legally, they couldn't get
social security added on for it because he wasn't natural.
And Edwards did introduce legislation to try and get it
through and legislation was defeated. I still don't know
why. This was about twenty years ago. Last year they
finally passed legislation that allows somebody who adopts a
child to collect social security on that child as their own
child. Now why wouldn't -- it should be certainly the same
difference between natural born versus adopted, but it
wasn't under those whatever the laws distinctions were. But
he did I remember specifically because it was one of my
students who was giving that was telling me about the their
case.
Again, noting how local legislation is, I use the
example in my book, of this individual I knew in Pensacola
Florida who was also a professor of political science who
had married a woman in Japan right at the end of world war
two. And at that point, it had become against the law for a
short period of time to bring war brides into the country.
A war bride was a term used for GIs who married women in
Japan in Germany even in the Philippines because they felt
that many of that's women were exploiting the GIs because of
their loneliness and their needs and then they were leaving
them or just trying to get in the country and it was a
reality and my family my second cousin my mothers cousin
married a woman in Germany. Right after that at the end of
world war two and she came to this country because this law
hadn't been passed yet and as soon as she got here she
disappear and you know stayed in the country and I remember
many years later when he want to remarry he had to go move
to Florida to get a divorce for desertions because in New
York I had a in Florida it was six months so is it happened
but he wanted to bring his wife into the country from Japan
and he therefore went he was living in Oregon. He went to
his legislature from Oregon who introduced into Congress
into the house of representative a bill whose only purpose
it was to bring his wife into this country. That bill for
him and his wife went to the house and through the Senate
and move on and the president sign it he showed me the bill
the president had sign this bill and he got a copy of it.
Only for him. It's amazing how many bills are personal
bills. I suspect that his bribery had taken place before.
Remember this was a political science professor. So bribery
is a different form and that is he's doing it because he's
paying back this guy for having work for him and that's also
very much the case legislature will definitely go out of
their way for people who have work for them. It's part of
the rewards that they tend to give if you will and it's
understandable so this if you're known -- I mean you know I
work for Don Edwards and he got to know me who was our
legislature and it's amazing -- I mean granted not just the
calendar for the new year or the Christmas card but he sent
me books from Congress and congressional books in 1976 was
the 200th anniversary of the declaration of independence. I
got the whole bound set of books that were printed by
Congress from him. Based on that. Because you know I had
worked for him and he -- and so you know they take care of
the people they know who were going to work or contribute
financially to their campaign. And so I probably would have
a better chance of getting legislation introduced than the
normal person because he would know me as someone who worked
for him but it doesn't mean that some people won't do it
just for the sake of it. Um, because think that's an
important issue. That happens all the time.
I remember we had a situation here in Fremont many years
ago; mace was illegal. Teargas was illegal in California.
Any usage ownership of it at all. And this woman was
attacked down on somewhere near the Sizzler. I guess down in
Centerville. But she pulled out an illegal can of mace and
protected herself. She was busted by the police. And our
local assemblyman specifically got on the ban wagon and
introduced legislation which now is in existence where if
you take a course on the use of mace you can carry it with
you. That was specific legislation that we're familiar with
now because of a case here in Fremont and an assembly person
who didn't know the person but felt it was stupid that she
was arrested for protecting herself. We don't have any
course that you need to take to carry pepper spray, right?
You can just buy that. Well, in any way, um, the point the
point is well made that that kind of legislation is the
major power of a lot of legislation. I don't know if I used
this as an example in the book about Ohlone college where
they want to have the election on even years and we
introduced the legislation for Ohlone college and when it
went through that state assembly and Senate it became a law
that allowed any community college district to do it. So
sometimes you put it in for a specific group and it expands
into something that covers that whole category of groups.
In other words, categorical. Well, once again the issue is
doing something for me. And that is why we have two terms
that we are on the word list. Pork barrel legislation and
log rolling. Pork barrel refers to I think I defined it
earlier to any legislation that is introduced for --
specifically to bring home the fat, the bacon. It's
beneficial to your district. Obviously a 19th century kind
of a term. Log rolling also a term refers to legislatures a
agrees to vote for each others bills. I'll scratch your back
if you scratch mine. I don't like the fact that you're
asking money for a dam and you don't like the fact that I'm
asking for a post office. So let's just vote for each
others bill because then I'll get my post office and you'll
get your dam. So we make a -- we are working together and I
guess log rolling comes from the term that people who rolled
the logs down the stream had to work together to make sure
the logs got to the lumber mill as they turned them. Way
before my time. Log rolling.
I'd like to now at this juncture talk about the
requirements for a legislature and then how a bill becomes a
law. So, we have two houses of Congress. The house of reps
and the Senate. Now you got to be careful. Because
sometimes you make the mistake of referring to Congress as
the house of reps. It includes both the house and the
Senate. And if you make that mistake on an exam you could
lose a point or so. Why then do we make the mistake this
because for some strange reason we refer to members of house
of reps as congressmen. And senators we don't call
Congressmen. So when we call members of house of reps we
think of house of reps as Congress. I think that -- they
are representatives and both members of the house and Senate
are Congress.
Don Edwards used to put down MC after his name. Member
of Congress. That's done more often in England where
members of parliment -- they always put down MP after their
names. What are the requirements to be a members of house of
reps? According to the Constitution? You have to be a
minimum of 25 years of age and what other one? You have to
live in the state for -- you have to be a resident for seven
years. You don't have to be born a citizen. You can be a
naturalized citizen. The representative from the Palo Alto
area has a very heavy accent. He was born in Hungary
previous to World War II. He couldn't serve as president,
but he can serve as a member of the house or Senate. What
are the requirements for a member of United States Senate?
You have to be thirty years old. And it's nine years as a
resident. How long do you serve as the member of house?
Two years. House is two years. However, obviously as we
pointed out, most people get re elected and there are no
term limits. So it becomes a full time job. How long in
the U.S. Senate? Six years. Senators serve for six;
members of the house serve for two. Ted Kennedy got elected
at the age of thirty. The youngest possible age and he's
still in the U.S. Senate and I believe he is pushing seventy
right now. So forty years full time job. The oldest member
of the Senate of course is Strom Thurman. Didn't we mention
him before in class? 95 years old talking about re running
again for re election. Well we know it's not even a
question that he'll be elected because he's brought so much
to his district in South Carolina. Will he survive another
six years? Who knows? George Burns made it to the hundreds
that he wanted to. He couldn't run his hundred birthday at
the Paladium as he wanted to.
Every two years every members of house is reelected as
we indicated or is up for re election. Members of Senate
stagger their term, so there's an overlap. Only one-third
of the Senate is up for re election. So it's 33, 33, 34.
Since there are one hundred members of Senate. By the way
how many members of house again? 435. 435 who were all up
for re election every two years. Because all 435 are up for
re election every two years, we number the Congress based on
the House of Representative elections. The first Congress
made met in 1789 who was the first Congress. This is the
106th Congress. So every two years there is a new number
given to the Congress.
We've talked about the requirements in the Constitution,
but there are some unwritten requirements at least not as
strong as the president. What are some of the things that
are unwritten? Well first of all, age. Very few have been
elected to the house at 25. Some have. Most are in their
30s. In the Senate very few are elected at the age of
thirty. I just mentioned Ted Kennedy was. However, most
are elected in their forties to the Senate. And we pointed
out earlier that most presidents are elected in their 50s.
What other factors do we see in the election like the
presidency? Most senators have been male, most members of
the house have been male in recent years, we've seen a few
more females elected. Up until a number of years ago we had
had one or two senators who were female. In the last Senate
in the last Congress, we had 19 women serving in the Senate
out of a hundred. With a little less than ten percent.
It's now eight. The woman senator from Illinois was
defeated. The woman senator from Illinois was defeated. In
the House of Reps, we have 43 and I've got the exact number
in the book. Women are again just under ten percent. Yet
women constitute 51 percent of the population. The vast
number are attorneys. Far more in than the average percent
in population in 1980 63 out of senators were attorney. In
the last Congress the number of attorneys was something like
56. I forget the exact but still the majority. In the
house of reps in 1980 it was 46 percent. In the last
Congress it was 41 percent. Why is it that attorneys are so
active in politics? A lot of legislation. Legislation
being able to read it. It's often written by attorneys
therefore they're active in creating legislation. Also
perhaps because they have schedules that they can set up to
work publicly and the more their name gets known the more
business it brings to their company. A lot of attorneys
tend to enter into the political arena even locally. Many
times they enter politics so they can be known to get an
appointment as a judge. This is many years who run for the
Ohlone college of attorneys. We at one time had five out of
seven board members of were attorney. But just recently one
of our board members who was an attorney became a municipal
judge now superior court judge. So it is not too uncommon
for many attorneys to get into their name recognition
basically because the active in political party. Now this
guy was a Democrat most of his life but when the republicans
took over in California he switched to get appointed despite
the fact that the governor at the time Dukemajin questioned
him for having been a Democrat even but he gave the
appointment to the his name is Dick Keller. So interesting
on that level. Um, most have been white. There are
something like 37 blacks in the house there are know blacks
to my knowledge in the Senate. Very few Hispanics about 19
in the house. Few Asians. The only group that ever
represented in numbers but not greatly but certainly has
more upon the population are Jews. In the house and
Senate. In fact California is unique that both senators are
women and Jewish. Why is there a greater percentage of Jews
in politics, anybody? Think of a reason?
I think because so many Jews were killed so maybe they
feel like they want to give back and do service and become a
senator. Maybe; maybe?
It's a nice thought. I'm not sure that's the reason. I
like the answer. You're not off base in the sense not so
much they were killed then we were talking a period of time
but historically bunch of the way Jews have been able to
preserve their survival is that they have been active in
political organizations be it in Holland or by actively
engaging in politics going back to Queen Estes times it was
part of survival. Also being part of that legal profession
many Jewish parents like the children to enter politics
specifically or I'm sorry like them to enter the profession
of law and since we have such a great percentage of lawyers
in politics both senators from California both women were
originally attorneys. So the combination of the law and the
ethics and the survival are factors why the Jews that make
up maybe less than one percent of the American population
probably make up about five percent of the members of the
house and Senate. Okay. We'll see you on Thursday.