Election lecture series like last time he is professor of politics at Catholic University and associate fellow at the institute for policy research and catholic studies at a you. I confirmed a few minutes ago that i thought may have been likely. He has two brooks books hot off the press in the last two months. From Cambridge University press his book legislative hardball, the House Freedom caucus in the power of threat making in congress and then a few months before that, leadership elections in the us house of representatives which look like this because it is this. And i think this one copies in the back maybe . No copies on that. He was supposed to speak with his colleague doug harris who could not be here today unfortunately but we will leave him to speak on his behalf. Congratulations for the banner year and publication. Welcome. [ applause ] thanks for the opportunity to speak to the capitol hill historic society. Can everyone hear me . Excellent. Its great to be back here with the capital Historical Society. Im a big fan of the Historical Society and im honored to be here today to talk about this new book that doug harris and i published, choosing a leader, leadership elections in the house of representatives. We dont have copy for sale but there is information if you would like to learn more about the book or get a copy of your own. I spoke previously on this subject as was mentioned last fall. I will cover some of the same ground but also cover some Additional Information from the book and new material that i did not discuss. Time permitting i want to talk about the most recent furiously contested election in the house of representatives which is the race for speaker of the house of representatives and the battle in the democratic party. What i want to do first is talk about what we are doing and why we think its important. We know intuitively that Party Leaders are important. We also have a wealth of social Science Research that tells us leaders are important in congress. They help set the legislative agenda, help craft legislation, help members get elected or reelected, and we know that theres a number of significant bills that have become law in American History in which Party Leaders played a key role in either the content of that legislation getting legislation through the legislative process whether its the Carter Energy bill under then speaker oneill or the contract with america and later welfare reform under speaker Newt Gingrich or the Affordable Care act which was passed in part with the guidance of nancy pelosi or the tax reform bill passed under speaker ryan in the previous congress. These are just speakers. There are other leaders who play important roles in the legislative process and acting policy. Whats interesting and one of the things that motivated myself and doug was that we know that leaders are important but we dont actually know a lot about the process which, or the politics by which leaders are select did in congress. So the question that motivated our project was how do lawmakers decide who to choose for a leader . Some leadership positions are ones in which only one person runs or the person who is running is considered be heir apparent so there is no context contest but there are a number of contests where two or more people are running for the same position. The question is who wins and who chooses which candidate and why . And as a consequence who ends up becoming a leader in congress with the potential for tremendous influence . We say there are two kinds of contention will of wisdom. The first is that they are ideological so lawmakers decide who to vote for based on whether the candidate is more conservative or liberal. If they are conservative they want more conservative candidates and vice versa. You hear this quite frequently in descriptions of races for leadership. The other common explanation for these elections is that there is no common explanation. Its just random really based on each individual race in the idiosyncratic factors involved whether its friendships or individual deals or personality. Its impossible to generalize about these races. Doug and i take a different approach. We argue that yes ideology can matter and yes there are certainly individual factors that play a role in these races but we argue there are consistent factors that pop up over and over again in leadership elections in congress. They can help explain both choices in these races. We have really two sets of hypotheses in our book. The first is that professional connections help explain this. By that i mean does a lawmaker know someone running for office through either a shared committee or a shared state delegation . In that case they will certainly know the candidate well but also be familiar with how they operate as a lawmaker and the potential that they have for being a leader. Under those circumstances folks in the same state or the same committee as the candidate are more likely to support that candidate. The other hypothesis is that lawmakers think about their goals and how candidates can help them meet that goal. Political scientists taught scientist argues that there are three goals important infrequent which is reelection, policymaking, and influence in the legislature. We argue that lawmakers and evaluate which one is more likely to achieve reelection policy and influence goals. Those are determined by a number of things depending on who the candidates are, the kind of campaigns they are waging, a Junior Member or senior member, etc. A Junior Member or senior member, etc. Theres a problem with studying leadership elections which is probably why not many people have done it. Its done by secret ballot. You dont know how a lawmaker voted in a leadership election unlike a roll call vote so how can you determine what influence the lawmakers vote if you dont know how they actually voted . The answer that we offer is to look at internal sheets. In a typical race of someone is running for a leadership position they and lawmakers part of the Campaign Team will go to their colleagues and say how are you going to vote . Will you vote for me . Will you vote for the other person or people . And they keep track of that information. We use that as a proxy for how lawmakers actually vote in these elections. Doug and i went to or gathered data from 20 different congressional archive collections around the country and gathered counts on a dozen different leadership races since 1965. We use the data to estimate how lawmakers voted in these elections. We also gathered other materials as well. Colleague letters, letters of support and telegrams, strategy memos to help understand not only how lawmakers may have voted but the context in which the election took place and Campaign Strategies and tech ticks of the candidate. We dedicate a whole chapter to the election process. How it works, how a campaign tries to get votes, etc. When we suggested this as a source of data some folks said how do you know those are accurate . In particular how do you know if lawmakers are telling the truth . What you hear a lot about is that lawmakers lie. They say absolutely ill vote for you and then dont and the other candidate says ive for you and they may or may not. If thats the case, all of these votes are secret right . So theres no way to know if they are lying or not. These commitments you make are unenforceable. We argue that the claim that people lie is greatly exaggerated and theres a few reasons why we think that is the case although its true. You see from this excerpt some folks who did not vote for them i thought that they did or would are liars and would even call them as much. Why do we think this is overstated . For one thing the final tallies that we count are close to the number of votes that they get. We see 5 over count and they were over count the number of votes that they get by about five by about 5 . Thats not very big. There are bigger errors when lawmakers try to count other candidates and there could be various reasons but in terms of their own votes its fairly accurate. Theres also an important norm of keeping your word. This we argue extents not just two things in which your word and commitment can be confirmed, and also in which it cannot be confirmed. One recently to this is the case is because they go to someone who doesnt want to vote for them, that doesnt necessarily mean they will say no because they dont want to hurt the persons feelings so they will say things like well you would be a great candidate. I hope you win. Good luck. Im right behind you. All that means nothing. Is a polite way of saying no. Good candidates follow up with that. I didnt hear whether that was a yes or no. You look him right in the eyes and say will you vote for me or not . There was one candidate for a leadership election who did meticulous counting and then went to someone running the campaign and said no you, i going to vote for me . And the congressman said what do you think . He said no, i want to hear. Getting Firm Commitments is key because lawmakers know that they would rather give an ambiguous answer whether to vote or not finally we did manage to collect some sheets of more than one candidate in the same race so we can look for votes counted as voting or committing to vote as one person. What we found is very few lawmakers to that. Very few are favors or miscounted and counted as a yes vote on more than one candidate worksheet. We look at 14 leadership elections from 19652013 and we look at the house of representatives majority and minority leader, majority whip and minority whip. We divide them into categories based on categories developed by robert peabody, another scientist who studied this phenomenon in congress, and we look at open competition races so its an open seat there is no heir apparent, no one who occupies the position. Second we look at our challenges to the heir apparent which is a person is expected that, but other people run as well then we look at revolt when someone is an incumbent running again someone decides to run against person. We find strong statistical evidence for our hypotheses about the roles of professional connections and goals. This is taken from the book, this is a table that summarizes results. I wont go through all of these in detail. Im not going to throw statistics up here on powerpoint. If youre interested theres more in the book but what i want to do in the time i have remaining is talk about a few of these races that were politically consequential or the dynamics made them especially noteworthy and colorful and fun to look at. Writing this book was fun for us, looking at some of these races and reading about the politics that go on when running for a leadership position. The first race want to talk about is the 1964 election for minority leader in the house of representatives. The republicans in minority and charlie from indiana is challenged by a congressman named gerald ford. A few things to say about these candidates and what was happening in the run up to this election. He was a selfdescribed get fighter. And aggressive partisan, pushing democrats and winning votes. He was a very assertive leader. He also rubbed people the wrong way perhaps because of his style of leadership in 1964 elections are particularly bad ones. They lose seats in the house and president ial elections. A lot of republicans and this is a common theme. Depending on the circumstances in a leader fellow partisans say we have to find someone to blame. Weve got to change leadership or something of that sort. What happens is some reformers demand a meeting of the party to talk about ways to change things. Maybe distribute power more widely. Its not really a reformist and pretty lukewarm so the younger members in particular decide i think we are going to have to get a new leader. And Charles Caddell the founder of the commissioner of the nfl, and they say you know what . You should challenge and. This is an important thing we talk about in the book, the role of recruitment. Its not everyone decides were going to run or not sometimes we need other leaders to encourage you to run. The floor decides to do it and start an assertive campaign to try to oust him. The things they say about the race. Ford was younger, he was conference chair and had defeated the conference chair and the person he beat warmed he and others to be aware of ford. He emphasized spreading more power in the party. He was a former allamerican foot ballplayer and ran a well organized campaign. One of the things they did is look for outsiders who may endorse him, Interest Groups or Barry Goldwater the president ial nominee, and encourage them to stay neutral. Try to mitigate the advantages that he would have as an incumbent. His campaign was less organized. He said youve got to do more than talk to some folks. If got to run an organized campaign. A key group are the moderates, members of what is called the wednesday group. They presumably would vote against halleck but have to be careful because a lot of republicans dont like them because they are moderate. You had to be cautious about cultivating their support. The less developments in the race, ford looked like he was going to win so he went on a vacation with his family. Not a good idea. Halleck managed to support a whip count to see who was a less firm supporter of ford and started lobbying them. The other folks said youve got to get back from your trip right now because we are going to lose this race if you dont come here and start calling members. He russes back, does more lobbying, manages to shore up his support and win 7367. Relatively close but highly consequential. When Richard Nixons Vice President resigned. One could make it compelling case that minority leader election led to the presidency of gerald ford. Those who had narrowly won reelection was more concerned about where the party was going and more likely to support ford as well as younger members as well. The second historical case that i wanted to talk about, this is the 1976 race for majority leader in the Democratic Caucus. I could talk about this race all day. Those who are familiar with the race know how political and controversial and exciting it was. What happened was carl albert announced he would retire and the majority leaders heir apparent your parents says want to be speaker. The question is who will take over for oneill as the majority leader in the Democratic Caucus . For candidates ultimately in this race is more right off the bat, located. John mcfall is the whip in the heir apparent. Burton the democrat from california, Richard Boling from missouri and jim right from texas. Personalities played a big role so i wanted to see a little bit about candidates backgrounds and personalities. Mcfall is the heir apparent. He was the whip but did not campaign to vigorously. He had oneill same i will support you on the first ballot but wasnt working to the same extent as other candidate to get the position. Most figure mcfall will probably get elected. Its a series of balance and rounds. Whoever has the fewest vote is out and then you have remaining votes for the remaining candidates. The dynamic is what votes can you get not just on the first ballot but the second or third . Mcfall is not as likely to make it past the first round of voting burton is a presumptive favorite. Is a fiery liberal, a reformist, a master legislator and is responsible for a lot of legislative accomplishments in congress often behindthe scenes. Is from california which has a large delegation so he can at least get some of mcfalls votes. Is also a controversial figure. Hes fiery and can be erratic. There are at least a dozen democrats and personally or other kinds of activity or behavior. Theres a number of democrats who are worried about burton as the majority leader in the Democratic Caucus. Bowling is a protigi of sam rayburn. Geismar, also a reformist and can be arrogant a lot of democrats got turned off by his manner. He runs explicitly to defeat burton. Is lets interested in said he said and being majority leader than making sure burton is not. Jim right from the Public Works Committee was seen by many as too conservative to have a chance. He was from texas, a southerner, had a mixed voting record on things like civil rights, and he entered late which possibly meant a lot of democrats had already committed to the other candidates. Behindthescenes theres evidence that oneill was unhappy with those first three choices and had been part of a group of members recruiting wright to run for this position. Another example of how it can be important. A number of issues pop up. Definitely ideology where you have wright on the left and wright on the right and burton on the left. The southern wing of the party is shrinking moving to the left. Region is an issue. You have large delegations, seniority is an issue and urban districts because wright being from the Public Works Committee had been able to give favors to folks from large city delegations. If you developments i will mention. First was wright s entry who came in late. So would that make a difference . And could he actually be . Beach burton . A lot thought he was the next candidate after mcfall. The second was where oneill is going to vote. He kept his cards close to his vest. He said im going to support mcfall in the first ballot. There were rumors he could not stand burton but other than that it wasnt clear where his vote can be and could be decisive. There are a number of anecdotes from this race so one that i like is when Richard Boling wants to brag about how wright is going to lose so he talks to a staffer and says wright has no chance and explains why. Hes too conservative on civil rights, oil and gas, and the staffer goes to the campaign and tells him all of that so they readjust their campaign accordingly emphasizing civil rights for example. If you are going to run for this kind of elections got to be careful what information you are going to share. In the end, final election. First round of voting is not a surprising outcome. Burton comes in first by a decisive margin and mcfall comes in last. Wright third, boling second. Mcfall is out, people figure well the californias support will go to burton and we will wrap up the race pretty quickly. Second round was not what people expected. First of all, you had wright beating boling and people thought wright . He supposed to be the next week as candidate. How did he get more votes . And then burton only gets one more vote than he had before. Where did all of those mcfall votes go . Some democrats started to smell a rat. They thought this is typical burton scheming. He probably told some of his allies to back wright in the second round to eliminate boling and then wright being the weaker candidate, he would defeat him. The weekend determined based on research that that may have happened with some democrats but they did it on their own. That make sense insofar as perhaps burton was smart enough to realize that by doing that confirmed the worst suspicions that his opponent hads, that he was a schemer and only interested in winning power. There is a series of debates happening on the floor between this count and the third round of voting. Any or all may have played a role because in the end wright beat burton by one vote. This was another big shot two observers. They never thought this could possibly happen. Big consequences here as well. Wright becomes majority leader and then speaker of the house of representatives. He steps down over ethics issues which gives space for a fellow called Newt Gingrich. It has profound downstream consequences for congressional politics and policy. We cant say that it was all because of this or that. We are talking about a one vote margin relationships played a role in this but we were able to gather some counts into some analysis and we found things that confirm our view of leadership braces. So leaders were supportive of another leader, mcfall, and then moved to wright in the final round. Boling and wright were able to get from their committee which is good because he came from a large city and delegation. California leans towards candidates from their delegation and wright was able to secure the votes of conservative and urban democrats which was important. Third example is a more recent case we havent discussed before but wrote about in the book thats also consequential. Yes sir . Thats why he didnt do anything. He was a damage candidate almost from the very beginning and secondly there are huge negotiations between burton and wright of whether the first ballot every one of these leadership braces are done to novo. In this case he was pushing for a cut off right away on the first ballot which was usually the case but was up in the air here. At first it was going to be a free vote on the first ballot so you didnt have to drop out as was usually the case. Burton was pushing hard with wright to agree to that. That would have hurt wright. We went to people and said on the first ballot but if you can give wright a chance to get to the second ballot, he would probably have a majority of the caucus which he himself did not like to hear. He was a very proud man but probably the majority choice of the caucus on the second ballot so that the order of voting became very crucial in those negotiations. Thank you. We talk about the scandal that further hurt fall when running for this position. In terms of the voting and how it has done is important. We talk about that in the book its after the case that the way you structure these can change the outcome. This would not be the only race in which they fight with each other over how its going to be carried out. Want to talk about the 1989 race which is also a consequential election. You have a new president , George Hw Bush and is looking for his secretary of defense chooses a former. He had been a member of the senate, had friends there, but actually lost his confirmation vote in the senate. So now bush has to find someone else and he decides on a fellow by the name of dyk cheney who was then the new minority whip in the house of representatives which created a vacancy in the middle of the term. Its not the end in the beginning but early middle i guess. Spring . So there are two candidates who ultimately throw their cats in the ring and say the entire race. One is ed madigan who had a magic a legislative background. He is the former chair of the Republican Research committee. He had a reputation as a legislator of working with others to accomplish Political Goals in and was a close ally of a fellow illinois republican, bob michael. Those are presumably good strength to bring to the table when you are running to a leadership position. The other running was this fellow new gingrich. At this point in his career new which was known for a few things. The cofounder of the group called conservative Opportunity Society formed after the 1982 elections to try to develop issues that could be communicated to the public to emphasize the difference between the parties and hopefully embarrassed democrats into voting for things that were popular with voters but not the democratic party. He was not known for leadership experience because he had none. He had never served in a leadership position but was known for his provocative style of politics and emphasis on part of partisan differentiation. And most notably, helping bring down a speaker of the representatives have tim wright over ethics issues. I should note before we talk about those, also important is who did not run. For a short time in number of folks one today fellow named henry hyde to run, a well respected republican from the house of illinois. Some suggested if he had run one or more of the candidates may have dropped out but he did not. Another republican jerry lewis decided to run and then was persuaded not to buy the minority leader bob michael because he did not want the antigingrich vote to split between the other two candidates. Ideology is not a major factor. They are ideologically different but what they really talk about his the Strategic Direction of the party and where it should go. Madigan makes it clear that he believes that Newt Gingrich approach is not a good one. Partisan differentiation, provocative action, its more about working with congress to get things done and influence election outcomes. Theres also a difference in age and seniority. Younger members find younger or, gingrich works to appeal to those. They both campaigned pretty aggressively but gingrich makes a key move building a Strategic Alliance with moderates in his party. They dont agree with him ideologically but they do agree that more needs to be done get the republicans out of the minority and back into the chamber which they have not controlled since 1964 so that is a key alliance. There are a number of developments. What happens is when he goes to his colleagues and says bob michael is doing what he can to stop and its frustrating. So a group of allies go to bob michael unannounced and say youve got to cut it out. Stay out of this race. Let the members decide. Dont take sides. It was a tense and at times emotional meeting but michael agreed and that may have been a Key Development in the campaign particularly in of madigan. Gingrich wins by two votes. A landslide the jury in leadership election. Its very very close and the party is split almost evenly between the two. But the consequences are profound. For many, this is seen as a symbolic confirmation of his strategic approach to party politics. When you are in the minority you have to be aggressive, partisan, use communication. You dont make deals and you dont try to compromise. I think this could be stated to some degree because several members are staying several members have been elected to leadership. He was second in command behind bob michael and in line to be the leader of the party if not speaker. This also led to tension between gingrich and michael. He was not a fan of gingrich at all and was not happy they elected. They disagreed on strategy on more than one election and ironically it created problems for president bush because he reached an agreement with democrats over a budget and spending and helped that package die in the house of representatives. Many were furious and some even held it against him when he lost reelection. Its an ironic result of the decision of who should be the secretary of defense. So, a number of factors explain vote choice but ideology does not which is what we would expect. Its the assumption of how ideology matters is not always correct. You have to look at the context and one factory want to point out is we find a variable that helps explain vote choice and thats whether a republican had publicly endorse gingrichs ethics investigation into wright. Republicans who signed that letter were significantly more likely to vote for gingrich which we take as a sign of that view of Party Strategy as being key in explaining vote choice in the selection. What i want to do now with the few minutes i have remaining is go from older history to recent history in the house of representatives and talk about the race for speaker. This is a different kind of election than others that ive talked about and most that we cover in the book because this is about the speaker and when theres an election for speaker you have a vote to pick a nominee and in the full house of representatives. You have to run twice if youre going to be speaker of the house. Many who are challenged on the floor, and pelosi was among them, have no challenger which changes dynamics because theres no one really running again. They tend to have resources to deal with those who would not vote for them in the full house vote is key because even if a majority votes for a nominee for speaker that speaker may not get a majority on the house floor assuming the other party formally votes against them. You have to keep the party as unified as possible. Whats interesting is the number of against the Party Nominee have increased in number over time. It becomes a routine event that at least some members of either party will not vote for their partys nominee on the floor. This is a new reality you have to deal with if you want to be speaker in the house of representatives. In Nancy Pelosis case there were signs of discontent having to do with democrats being in the minority since 2010, and in november 2018 you think while the democrats want control of the house so they wont be but there are still democrats who are disgruntled. Some express ambivalence or say i wont vote for her. There are 27 democrats who say not just during the campaign but after the election i will not vote for nancy pelosi for speaker. She will not have a majority votes in the representatives at least the first round of ballots. We did an analysis of those folks and they tended to be more junior or from conservative districts and if you were a democrat that got elected by beating another incumbent you are more likely to oppose pelosi which suggests it has to do with being an outsider as much as ideology. How does policy manage to do it . There are two tech six that she used to what extent we personally all of them. You have governors and communists think how could you not vote for nancy pelosi . Shes amazing. You also have an individual exchange of and if its goods and other ways in which deals are made. It gives them a position on committee or gives them priority and certain groups like the progressive caucus and problem solvers deal with them as a group. Not many have said they oppose her but said we are not sure. May be a little wiggle room, and then pelosi they could try to negotiate with her. The meeting between Chuck Schumer pelosi and trump in the white house, a lot of people saw that is very strong. They all came for different reasons, and its hard to keep a group together if they cant agree on why they are together in the first place. Pelosi had 15 democrats either vote no or present. That doesnt count toward the total so that also helped her. What we found is that those who were by our model the least likely to vote against her were the ones that she made deals with and switched their votes which suggest pelosi was being very strategic. You are young, conservative, you beat another democrat. Lets see what deal i can make with them. We will argue this kind of strategic dealmaking that can be key. To wrap up, leadership is consequential for congress in american politics so leadership races are. They are not random nor are they sorely dictated by ideology. There are consistent factors that shape vote choice in these elections. With that i will conclude and im happy to answer any questions that you have. [ applause ] im interested that in the first race of ford versus you mentioned the Charter Group and not the marching club. Thats true. We didnt find any relationship between membership and the chowder marching club, and vote choice in that election. But you are right they were an Important Group of republicans in the house of representatives. And helped him overthrow martin which and then switch to ford. I have to go back and see, i can see the list of members that im not sure whether we had it at the time we were doing the analysis. We had to rely on other accounts so its possible that membership in that group explains vote choice but my thinking about the analysis that we do doesnt immediately ring were female were they more likely to vote for her . But i dont think we found any effect of gender controlling in those factors. That doesnt mean it didnt play a role in other ways. But the actual gender of a member of congress didnt specifically openly or willfully oppose. First to comment and then a question. You mentioned in buying for election that a candidate gathers a support if they can promote voters and promote their policy and influence. If my memory is correct, House Speaker nancy pelosi volunteered to be the whipping boy in the election. She said vote against me if you need to. Talk bad about me if you need to. In a way she was helping other democrats get elected . So shes working for their election as well in a backward kind of way . The mat again and michael relationship. Is it common for a leader of the whip to be from the same state . One of the other factors was that they were from the same state. And some republicans didnt think that was a good idea. There are many cases a tradition of a regional balance. The democrats had the alternating leadership one from texas, and oklahoma. And then from massachusetts. So that both wings of the party felt that they had representation. There were certainly republicans who thought we really want to have the top two leaders know each other and be from the same state. Thats not going to be reflective of the diversity of our party. You also have a growing southern wing which becomes a factor in the leadership races as well. And i have something to that . Both the majority leader and the whip were both from texas. Which surprised a lot of people. There were no regional differences. If memory serves. We look at some races. The race for web with bob walker who was from pennsylvania was trying to make that point. We cant have everybody from the same state. That did not work well enough for him to win that race. It deftly comes up in the race and he can become a factor. And you say cant vote for somebody from my region . That doesnt automatically mean that they will get everyone from that region or that they will win. We looked at some pretty lopsided races. When udall challenged mccormick for the nomination for speaker in 1969 he was beaten pretty badly in that election. When gephardt ran for whip in 1989 he won pretty decisively. These were cases where it might be a little deceptive where it looks like things are close. They can be but theyre not necessarily. One the things that we talk about in the book sometimes you have races where Everybody Knows who the candidate is its going to win. And then they run anyway, so why did the candidate run in the first place . They knew they didnt have a chance . No one was going to vote for them. It reveals the many reasons that people run for leadership. Its not always to get elected. Its also to put an agenda out there send a warning signal. Im important and i have a group of people with me. It could be a way to gear up for future races. Just because they races lopsided doesnt mean its insignificant. Gingrich was a steady next to trent a lot, and trent a lot was a second later in the house. And he said if we dont get this guy within the first 50 days will be the most powerful speaker since clay. And he proceeded to do a whole things to cause that to happen. John barry talked about that. That. With gingrich. Also quotes gingrich. And said that this could be the most powerful speaker in a generation. We need to do whatever we can to weaken him. Gingrich used very aggressive tactics. And many republicans including bob michael and those in the conservative society thought that gingrich was out there. Saying youre just making stuff up. He was relentless. He just kept finding issues , saying there were issues, and pushing in the press. Whether you agree or disagree, he was masterful in using the press to create a story. That he was somehow corrupt. It proved too difficult for his allies to overcome. You talk about doing research in the archives. Was there any trend . Was it the people running campaigns . Was there a general acknowledgment that this was a historical event . Was there anything to that . Like if doug were here i know he would help. His memory is better than mine. I dont think there was a pattern based on the winners of verses losers. Maybe its to figure out who was a liar. It wasnt so much that. Frankly if i had to point out any pattern youd have somebody who had a sense of posterity it was important. Or they were thinking about running for leadership again. If you want to keep that with count for a future race. And of course the nature of these collections. Some were very well organized and well open. Others were harder to get access to. Which speaks to how important it is. When lawmakers leave congress that they have somebody who goes through it, catalogs it so it available to researchers so that we can learn about them and how congress works. Any other questions . Okay. Thank you so much. The u. S. Capital Historical Society hosted a tribute to the Senate Finance committee. Present and past members discuss the committees purpose and work since it was formally created in 1816. Each year the u. S. Capital Historical Society honors the history and accomplishments of congressional committees
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.