Center for Effective Law Making: Highlights from the 116th Congress Legislative Effectiveness Scores

[lapucelle]

The Center for Effective Lawmaking (CEL) is pleased to announce the release of the Legislative Effectiveness Scores (LES) for the recently-completed 116th Congress (2019-21). As in all previous releases, the scores are based on the combination of fifteen metrics regarding the bills that each member of Congress sponsors, how far they move through the lawmaking process, and how substantial their policy proposals are. The scores are normalized to an average value of 1.0 in both the House and the Senate. More on our methodology can be found here.

Each lawmaker’s LES can be found here. For each Representative and Senator, we also identify a Benchmark Score, based on the average effectiveness of lawmakers that share that legislator’s level of seniority, majority- or minority-party status, and (where relevant) chair position on a committee or subcommittee. These are important considerations to control for. For example, in the 116th House, minority-party lawmakers had an average LES of 0.534, compared to 1.398 for majority-party members, while committee chairs had an average of 3.080. In the more-egalitarian Senate, those averages were 0.933 in the minority party, 1.056 in the majority party, and 1.432 among committee chairs. (This is the lowest gap in LES between the majority and minority parties over the entire time period for which these scores are calculated – since 1973.)

We then label each lawmaker as “Exceeding Expectations” for those outperforming their benchmark by 50% or more, “Below Expectations” for those below 50% of their benchmark, and “Meeting Expectations” for those scoring near their benchmark.

Finally, within each party, we rank each member from first to last. This ranking is used to generate the Top Ten lists highlighted in the tables below. Given the strong benefit from being in the majority party, ranking the entire Congress together would be inappropriate. But these comparisons within each party are quite informative.

https://thelawmakers.org/legislative-effectiveness-scores/highlights-from-the-new-116th-congress-legislative-effectiveness-scores

Find your congressperson and senators:
https://thelawmakers.org/find-representatives

[George II]

1. Interesting that six of the top 30 Democrats are from the NYC area:

1 - Lowey
3 - Maloney
12 - Eliot
17 - Nadler
18 - Velazquez
30 - Jeffries

Too bad we lost Lowey and Eliot last year.

[Autumn]

2. Lowey and Eliot's seats were not lost, they were won by 2 fine Democrats,

strong men of color. Not bad at all.

[George II]

3. I didn't say their seats were LOST, I said we lost THEM. Are either still in the House?

Between them they had more than 60 years of experience. That's a lot of valuable experience to lose in one year. And as noted from that study, they were among the most effective Members of Congress.

[Autumn]

5. Times change. Its better to have new people, more representative of America

If 2 people have 60 years experience between them that's a long time in office. As long as they are replaced by younger Democrats I'm good with that. Lowey was retiring anyway.

[George II]

9. They didn't represent "America" they represented the New York City Metropolitan area....

So you don't think two Jewish representatives aren't "representative" enough? More than 20% of the Jewish population of the United States live in the NYC Metro area.

Fact is, WE LOST THEM and their 60+ years of experience in the House, no two ways about it. And getting back to the point of the OP, in the last session they were the most effective of 240 Democrats and the 12th most effective, obviously although "times change" it didn't change their effectiveness as Representatives.

[Autumn]

12. I'm talking about the House on the whole. Two reps are gone, replaced by Dems. IMO we lost nothing

[George II]

13. I don't know what else to tell you Autumn, but we lost 62 years' experience, which is NOT "nothing".

[Autumn]

18. Add up the total years of experience of all Dems, look at that and look where we are at.

It's not the experience that matter AFAIC. YMMV

[George II]

21. I don't even know what that means, Autumn, but.....

....getting back to the OP, the study ranked Democrats' (and republicans', separately) effectiveness in the last session of Congress.

Nita Lowey ranked number ONE and Eliot Engel number TWELVE in a field of 240 members. You can discredit that as much as you want, but it doesn't take away from their effectiveness and accomplishments. 1 of 240 and 12 of 240 is very impressive, and obviously demonstrates that experience does matter quite a bit.

If you want to "add up" and do some math, check the number of years' experience of the 240 members compared to their rankings. You'll find that those with the most experience are at the top of the list, and those with the least experience are at the bottom.

1 - Lowey - 32 years
3 - Maloney - 28 years
12 - Eliot - 32 years
17 - Nadler - 28 years
18 - Velazquez - 28 years
30 - Jeffries - 8 years (the kid in the group!)

You can and as much as you want, but those are cold hard facts in black and white.

[Autumn]

24. The study is not important. Any one can rank #1 when Republicans, Dems and

Republicans like Marco Rubio support their bills. Cold hard facts. I liked her and she WAS the Chair of the powerful House Committee on Appropriations which IMO counted for some of her effectiveness.

[George II]

30. She got to be chair BECAUSE she was effective, not the other way around.

[Autumn]

32. AOC raised the most money among House Dems for reelection campaign.

Study declares AOC least effective. Vulnerable Dems fret after getting a shock: AOC’s campaign cash Don't worry three moderates returned the cash.

[George II]

34. So? What does that have to do with a Representative doing his/her job?

And why is this so ?

[betsuni]

42. Seriously. I thought fundraising skills were bad because money in politics is very bad.

Guess legal donations are okay now and not corrupting.

[George II]

54. Apparently "big money in politics" is good for some, bad for others. What would be interesting....

....would be to look at where the money came from and where it's spent. It seems that some members are better at fundraising than doing their jobs in Congress.

[lapucelle]

44. It's incorrect as well. Speaker Pelosi raised more money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/nancy-pelosi/summary?cid=N00007360&cycle=2020

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/summary?cid=N00041162&cycle=2020

[George II]

55. Exactly.

[lapucelle]

43. That's not correct. Speaker Pelosi raised the most money among Democrats for both her own reelection

AND for other Democrats.

No other Democrat can say they’ve mustered anything close to the amount of money Pelosi raised for the party in 2020. That matters in an era where positions of power in Congress — whether they’re leadership roles or committee assignments — come at a price.

Pelosi’s joint fundraising committee, the Nancy Pelosi Victory Fund, raised a whopping $23.7 million through September 2020, up from $3.7 million through the entirety of the 2018 cycle. It transferred $20 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, House Democrats’ campaign arm. Pelosi’s campaign committee transferred another $1.6 million to the DCCC. Then there’s Pelosi’s leadership PAC, PAC to the Future, which contributed the maximum $10,000 to nearly every House Democrat running in a remotely competitive race.

snip==============================================================================================

Other House Democrats in leadership positions raise big money for the DCCC but they aren’t close to Pelosi. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) each gave around $1 million between their campaigns and leadership PACs.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who oversaw impeachment inquiries as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent roughly $900,000 to the DCCC. Schiff used his elevated profile to raise $10 million from small donors in the 2020 cycle, an incredible amount for a Democrat in a deep blue district.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/11/pelosi-fundraising-edge-in-speaker-race/

************************************************************************************************

Speaker Pelosi raised $27,000,000+ for her own re-election in 2020 and spent $11,000,000+ on contributions to other Democrats or Democratic committees.

A0C raised $20,000,000+ in 2020, and spent $10,000,000+ on media and salaries.

Because contributions don't even rate a category bar on the graph on A0C's page I imagine that the contributions she made to other Democrats are lumped in with all the other stuff in the "All Other" category: < $440,000.

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/nancy-pelosi/summary?cid=N00007360
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/expenditures?cid=N00041162&cycle=2020

[George II]

58. The study rates members on their effectiveness in Congress doing their jobs, not....

....their effectiveness in raising money.

I'm sure there have been studies concerning the comparative fundraising abilities of Congresspeople, but that's not the subject of the OP or this discussion.

So tell me Autumn, why is this so ?

[lapucelle]

46. Wait...what? "The study is not important"? Yes it is. We're Democrats. We like data.

Facts are our friends.

Do you have any facts to support your assertion that Democrat Nita Lowey owes her success as the most highly effective House member to Republicans?

[Autumn]

50. It might be important to you. It isn't to me. That my opinion and I'll not change it.

[lapucelle]

52. It's certainly true that facts and data are not important to everyone. N/T

[George II]

56. So then Autumn, on what do you base your opinion. That's a rather credible and detailed....

....study.

As for myself, I base the effectiveness of members on what they do IN the Congress, not how much money they raise outside the Congress. After all, they're elected to be Representatives, not fundraisers.

As far as fundraising is concerned, it's also a matter of where the money comes from and where it's used, too.

[Autumn]

57. I have never head of a chair of the appropriations committee to ever be ineffective, if one was

I missed it. If you want to talk about AOC, George you better find someone else. Maybe your friend will join in on your discussion.

[George II]

59. Neither have I. Perhaps it's because their effectiveness qualified them to become the chair....

....of the appropriations committee?

So why is this so ?

[Autumn]

60. Well for sure it's not often any politician will vote against funding the government

and it's agencies and since the Appropriations Committee put out those bills...

[George II]

61. Yes, it's not often that any politician would vote against funding the government.....

....and it's agencies, but it does happen.

For example:

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019

https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll049.xml

[Budi]

36. Umm. The 2nd year new member is #230 out of 240.

Yikes, huh!

Lucky for serious Democrats like Lauren Underwood to pick up the slack.

She is a bright new star that takes her elected positiin serious.

We need more like her! serious, diligent, smart & a proven leader.
Thanks Democrats for giving us Rep Lauren Underwood
💙👍

[Autumn]

37. I'm thankful for ALL our Dems. YMOV. nt

[Budi]

39. Yup. Even Senator Joe Manchin & Sen Sinema

Without them we'd have Mitch McConnell as Sen Majority Leader.

[Autumn]

51. That is the truth.

[lapucelle]

49. Yes, we are all thankful for Democrats in the Congress. N/T

[LetMyPeopleVote]

62. I am on the Just Us Democrats email list

Has the Just Us Democrats accomplished anything in Congress yet? The emails from the Just Us Democrats are really sad and funny

[betsuni]

40. Bernie Sanders: "We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin,

not by their sexual orientation or their gender, and not by their age. I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for."

[Cha]

19. Yes, Too bad we Lost two of the Most Effective

Congress People, Nita Lowry & Elliot Engel

[Hortensis]

4. 'we define legislative effectiveness as "proven ability to advance a member's agenda

items through the legislative process and into law.”

In defining legislative effectiveness in this way, it is important to note that our definition consists of four separate components: proven ability, advancing legislation, members’ agenda items, and progression through the legislative process into law. Our measure of legislative effectiveness was developed to incorporate each of these four components into a summary measure of legislators’ “effectiveness” in lawmaking. ...

A relatively low LES results from few introductions or from sponsored bills not progressing particularly far. ...

That said, other efforts that may be commonly considered “legislative effectiveness,” such as working behind the scenes to help others’ bills pass, having one’s legislative proposals incorporated into other legislators’ bills (which then advance further in the legislative process), serving as Speaker of the House or party leader, or blocking proposals of opponents, are not included in calculating the LES.

https://thelawmakers.org/faq

So house leaders are extremely highly effective but tend to have low LESes because they don't measure the work of leaders, but rather that of the vast majority of the 435 legislators. Whose job is getting legislation written and passed.

Also appearing toward the bottom would be members who fail to advance even their own claimed agenda items but seem important because they make a lot of public appearances.

[lapucelle]

7. Govtrack.us is also a reliable source for ratings and rankings.

2020 Report Cards
These statistics dissect the legislative records of Members of Congress during the 116th Congress (Jan 3, 2019-Jan 3, 2021), as of Jan 30, 2021.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2020

Find your members:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members

[George II]

14. That's another good site, I use it a lot. And then there is Progressive Punch:

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=house&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=

[Hortensis]

41. I notice most in the top 10 scored most progressive haven't been

in congress very long. Some have some achievement there, some don't. I always find this site interesting for what it shows but also extremely flawed and frustrating for what it doesn't and how badly it misleads.

After all, what IS most progressive? Should postures of support of very progressive-sounding bills, the kind everyone knows are going nowhere and most pay no attention to, count more than progressive bills successfully battled for and passed into law by over 250 legislators in both chambers?

With that in mind, I looked up their rating of lifelong progressive Nancy Pelosi. Her lifetime score is 93.57 out of 100 (109th), meaning 108 people on that list scored higher than Ms. ACA. (!) Okaaay, but evaluations of genuine achievement in the real world, where only real progressive benefit to society counts, would yield extremely different results.

[George II]

53. That Progressive Punch site can be misleading. There are scores for "Lifetime" and....

....just the current session. I've found the best way to compare members is to use just the current session, which at this time is inaccurate because it's only been about 2 months. If you look at the current session, the first 46 members are tied for 1st, the next 47 members are tied for 47th because there are just too few votes so far to distinguish them from each other.

Comparing "lifetime" scores is inaccurate because you're comparing 30+ year careers to those who have only been in the House for 2 years or so. Plus, as noted before, leaders normally don't participate in votes so there is less to judge, especially recently.

These sites are good for comparing the relative "progressiveness" of members in a particular session or lifetime for those who have been in the House for about the same time. The concept of "progressiveness" changes over the years.

Plus, each score on PP is based on the "progressiveness" of the districts too. For example, a member like Cuellar, in a right leaning District and who may only vote with Democrats say 60% of the time, might get a higher score than a member who votes with the Democrats 80% in a far left leaning District. The expectation is that one in a left-leaning District should vote with Democrats much more than one in a right-leaning District. They use the overall voting record compared to the relative "progressiveness" of the District.

[George II]

10. The Speaker and party leaders don't normally participate in the activities used to calculate....

....members' LES, like writing bills, submitting amendments, members of committees, etc.

[Hortensis]

11. Right. These rate the performance of some 400 rank and file legislators.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Interesting study

https://pix11.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-among-least-effective-lawmakers-in-congress-study/

[lapucelle]

8. And least effective in the New York delegation.

[Cha]

15. Wow... you would think..

oh never mind.

TY!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

28. This is interesting

Link to tweet

[Cha]

29. So is This.. TY! More so..

Link to tweet

[NurseJackie]

45. ⭐🌟💥 WOW! Fascinating!

Thank you for sharing that.

[Cha]

16. Mahalo, lapucelle.. what

a great find!

[lapucelle]

20. Facts are more important than narrative.

Mahalo my friend!!!!

[Cha]

22. Yes, they are and

Good on all those Dems in Congress who are Effective doing their Jobs!

[sheshe2]

17. Thank you.

[speak easy]

23. Bottom 2 (D/I) - Stabenow 0116; Sanders 0.136

[George II]

25. By the way, Jim Jordan is 202 of 205.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

26. Yeah for Lauren Underwood

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

31. She's impressive!

[George II]

33. Yes. She rarely tweets and doesn't have a Twitch account, but plugs away at her job.

[Hortensis]

35. Underwood came in with a background as a nurse, but she's an especially

heavy hauler on immigration, and then also on defense and science and technology. Last year she was made the chair of the house Homeland Security subcommittee on cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, and innovation. (!) Obviously a standout in her class who's being brought along.

[betsuni]

27. K&R

[Budi]

38. K & R Thank You for the valuable information.

These Are Facts, and they tell the true story of how influential a legislator really is, in the job they were elected to do.

We should pay more attention to Facts like these when our tax $$$ are paying them a salary of $175,000 a yr, best health care & retirement + investments & expense perks.

We really need on-the-job performance report cards like this for every election from here on.

Thanks~

[lapucelle]

47. "Those more effective tend to be what we would call the workhorses rather than the show horses."

Congress' most effective lawmakers aren't generally its household names

There are four lists of top 10 most effective lawmakers, one for each political party in each chamber of Congress. The topmost effective House member for each party was Reps. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and Michael McCaul, R-Texas, topped the House lists, while Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., took the No. 1 spots in the Senate were the topmost effective senators in the chamber for their respective parties.

“We’ve found initial patterns that those more effective tend to be what we would call the workhorses rather than the show horses, and because of their policy focus, they’re less likely to be called upon by the media,” said Volden.

“We’ve kind of relatedly found that those who are called on by the media, that there tends to be more of an interest in talking about ... politicking and personalities than there is in talking about policy and lawmaking.”

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/2021/04/03/most-effective-lawmakers-congress-arent-always-its-most-seen/4832707001/

[betsuni]

48. I love the workhorses!

[Hortensis]

63. :) The types in front of the cameras are almost laughably obvious

if you're looking: Can't miss spokesmen for what the party's (i.e., team's) doing, of course.

Show horses pushing themselves, though, and dissidents pushing dissension trick a lot of people who aren't looking for them. Some are both, especially since both types tend to be low achievers who need their voters to believe they're influential among their colleagues.

The work horses occasionally also step up individually and strategically, of course, when they need to advance their particular interest to the public to inform and gain support. They virtually always are working with the leadership when they do that, though. Like Senator Whitehouse's alarming explanations of what's happening on SCOTUS.

[lapucelle]

64. "Workhorse" was the term frequently used to describe HRC's role as senator.

Hillary’s Workhorse Image Serves Her Well
Sarah Binder
Tuesday, January 29, 2002

All eyes were on Hillary Rodham Clinton as she entered the Senate one year ago. It was hard to miss her, the only freshman senator trailed by a pack of reporters wherever she went. But pundits who predicted that Clinton would be ideologically combative and a lightning rod for conservative critics were mistaken.

snip===========================================================================================

...Nor did the Senate greet Clinton with open arms, refusing to give her the seats she sought on the most prestigious committees. Instead, she was relegated to second-tier policy committees, including health and education, environment and budget panels.

Despite the inauspicious beginning, Clinton should earn high marks from New Yorkers for her first-year performance, no matter what one thinks of her ideological stripes. Rather than becoming a Senate show horse, Clinton emerged as a Senate workhorse for the State of New York. Although her name recognition among Americans—indeed, worldwide—remains astronomically high, relatively few outside New York probably have caught much sight of her in the news this past year.

What has Clinton been doing out of the national limelight? To her credit, she has taken up the serious business of attending to the interests of New Yorkers, even before the horrific events of Sept. 11. Her legislative agenda has focused on education, health care and the environment, working even across party lines on occasion on issues she considers important to the residents of New York.

Her performance after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington also showed her single-minded focus on New York, as she attended to the health and welfare of rescue workers and the financial needs of New York City. She has been all but absent from the national stage, declining to enter the partisan fray over issues such as the appropriate way to stimulate the economy.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/hillarys-workhorse-image-serves-her-well/

[Hortensis]

65. Oh, yes. She's a major policy nerd, never saw a problem she didn't

want to attack and make better. (And discuss in detail with voters so they'd be excited too by what could be done and how. )

And work horse might have been invented for her. Real work, real study.

Sigh.

[betsuni]

66. +1