Oversight: Representing the Interests of Blacks and Latinos in Congress

By Michael D. Minta

Oversight answers the question of whether black and Latino legislators better represent minority interests in Congress than white legislators, and it is the first book on the subject to focus on congressional oversight rather than roll-call voting. In this important book, Michael Minta demonstrates that minority lawmakers provide qualitatively better representation of black and Latino interests than their white counterparts. They are more likely to intervene in decision making by federal agencies by testifying in support of minority interests at congressional oversight hearings. Minority legislators write more letters urging agency officials to enforce civil rights policies, and spend significant time and effort advocating for solutions to problems that affect all racial and ethnic groups, such as poverty, inadequate health care, fair housing, and community development.


In Oversight, Minta argues that minority members of Congress act on behalf of broad minority interests--inside and outside their districts--because of a shared bond of experience and a sense of linked fate. He shows how the presence of black and Latino legislators in the committee room increases the chances that minority perspectives and concerns will be addressed in committee deliberations, and also how minority lawmakers are effective at countering negative stereotypes about minorities in policy debates on issues like affirmative action and affordable housing.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Princeton University Press
• Release date: Aug 8, 2011
• ISBN: 9781400840342

Book preview

OVERSIGHT

OVERSIGHT

REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF BLACKS AND LATINOS IN CONGRESS

Michael D. Minta

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS    PRINCETON AND OXFORD

Copyright © 2011 by Princeton University Press

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW

press.princeton.edu

Mother to Son from The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, by Langston Hughes, edited by Arnold Rampersad with David Roessel, Associate Editor, copyright © 1994 by the Estate of Langston Hughes. Used by permission of Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc./David Higham Associates/Harold Ober Associates.

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Minta, Michael D., 1969–

Oversight : representing the interests of Blacks and Latinos in Congress / Michael D. Minta.

p.  cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-691-14925-7 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-691-14926-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. African American legislators. 2. Hispanic American legislators. 3. African Americans—Politics and government. 4. Hispanic Americans—Politics and government. 5. United States. Congress. 6. Representative government and representation—United States. I. Title.

JK1321.A37M56 2011

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

This book has been composed in Galliard

Printed on acid-free paper.

Printed in the United States of America

10    9    8    7    6    5    4    3    2    1

To my wife, Janell Lofton-Minta

Contents

List of Figures and Tables

Acknowledgments

1. Introduction

Voting as a Measure of Representation

Oversight as a Form of Political Representation

Strategic Group Uplift

Chapter Outline

2. Race, Ethnicity, and a Theory of Substantive Representation in Congressional Oversight

Origins and Presence of Strategic Group Uplift in African Americans

Origins of Strategic Group Uplift for Latino Legislators

Hypotheses and Alternative Explanations

Conclusion

3. Congress, Minority Interests, and Federal Policymaking

Congressional Intervention and African Americans

Mexican Americans and the Federal Government

Puerto Ricans and the Federal Government

Cuban Americans and Federal Government Intervention

Federal Interventions and Latino Interests

Federal Attention to Racial and Social Welfare Policies

Conclusion

4. Black and Brown Voices in Committee Deliberations on Civil Rights

Measuring Advocacy of Minority Interests in Committees

Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Congressional Overseers and Legislative Responsiveness

Civil Rights Enforcement in the Clinton Years

Return to Republican Rule and the Fight for Minority Rights

Civil Rights Enforcement in the Post-9/11 Era

Beyond the Deliberations

Conclusion

5. Congressional Oversight and Social Welfare Policy

Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Congressional Overseers

Congressional Attention to Social Welfare Issues and Legislative Responsiveness

Liberal Social Welfare Policy and the Clinton Years

Diversity of Perspectives and Challenging Negative Stereotypes in Social Welfare Debates

The Republicans’ Contract with America and Retrenchment of Social Welfare Policies

Diversity of Perspectives in Deliberations

Social Welfare Policy in the Post-9/11 Era

Conclusion

6. Conclusion

Implications for Racial, Ethnic, and Class-Based Politics

Implications for Coalition Politics

Implications for Political Representation

Legislative Responsiveness and Democratic Accountability

Legislators’ Motivations and Strategic Group Uplift

Congressional and Bureaucratic Relations

Limitations of Strategic Group Uplift

Public Policy Implications

APPENDIX A Data and Methodology

APPENDIX B Coding Protocol for Congressional Hearings

APPENDIX C Racial/Ethnic Congressional Hearings Coded

APPENDIX D General Social Welfare Congressional Hearings Coded

APPENDIX E–G Likelihood of Intervention for Stronger Enforcement of Civil Rights Policies

APPENDIX H–J Likelihood of Intervention for General Social Welfare Policies

References

Index

Figures and Tables

Figures

Tables

Acknowledgments

The great author and poet Langston Hughes wrote a famous poem, Mother to Son, where a mother gives powerful motivational advice to her son. In the poem the mother tells him:

Life for me ain’t been no crystal stair.

It’s had tacks in it, and splinters, and boards torn up.

And places with no carpet on the floor—

Bare. But all the time I’se been a-climbin’ on,

And reachin’ landin’s,

And turnin’ corners,

And sometimes goin’ in the dark . . .

Writing an academic book has been filled with some tacks and splinters along the way, but I have had many colleagues, friends, and family members who provided the invaluable support and guidance necessary to finish a project of this magnitude. Although this book has changed significantly in scope and substance from its dissertation form, I owe a debt to my former graduate school advisers, Richard Hall, Vincent Hutchings, Elisabeth Gerber, and Hanes Walton Jr. Their support and guidance were instrumental in my early growth and development as a social scientist. They allowed me to take intellectual risks and follow my own lead, even if the risks sometimes outweighed the benefits. They did not want to produce someone who did exactly what they did but someone who could find his own way and provide knowledge in areas that were not yet explored. I am glad that they were my advisers, and more important, I am glad to call them my friends.

I have met many other colleagues along the way, who have greatly assisted me in making this project better. Frank Baumgartner and Christopher Parker have provided tremendous support and feedback to me. Both have read every chapter of the book and provided detailed and insightful comments that have no doubt made this project more accessible to a broader audience than congressional scholars. In my writing, Frank pushed me to find my voice and once I did to let everyone know that I had something important to say. Chris pushed me to think about how my findings related to broader theoretical constructs that extend beyond congressional and bureaucratic politics. Claudine Gay and Katherine Tate read significant portions of the manuscript and urged me to be more precise in my claims but still make the book appealing to a general audience. I want to especially thank Princeton University Press’s executive editor of political science and law, Charles Myers, for his patience, encouragement, and guidance throughout the development and writing stage of the manuscript. I have received wonderful advice on the project through conversations, meetings, or various presentations from Matt Barreto, Cristina Beltran, Barry Burden, David Canon, Daniel Carpenter, Grace Cho, Richard Fenno, Morris Fiorina, Katrina Gamble, Lisa Garcia Bedolla, Christian Grose, Kerry Haynie, Mariely Lopez-Santana, Jane Mansbridge, Benjamin Marquez, Harwood McClerking, Kristina Miler, Gary Miller, Irfan Nooruddin, Ifeoma Okwuje, Matthew Platt, Andrew Rehfeld, Beth Reingold, Lynn Sanders, Mark Sawyer, Gary Segura, Itai Sened, Charles Shipan, Gisela Sin, Valeria Sinclair-Chapman, Jae-Jae Spoon, Dara Strolovitch, and Carol Swain. I also would like to thank the Weidenbaum Center for financial support provided to this project.

I am indebted to many talented people who provided research assistance to this project. Some, such as Kim Dorazio and Brooke Thomas Allen, have worked with me for many years. Both Kim and Brooke served as managers for the data collection and coding of the congressional hearings. Words cannot express the gratitude I have for their talents and hard work. I am also grateful for the hard work and research assistance provided by Rachel Cohen, Brittany Coleman, Ashleah Gilmore, Hana Greenberg, Deborah Grohosky, Steven Marcus, Annasara Purcell, Dominick Volonnino, and Shelby Washington. Additionally, I want to thank Ruth Homrighaus for copyediting and formatting the initial draft of this manuscript and Margery Tippie for copyediting the final draft. The book is much better because of their efforts.

None of my efforts would be possible without the love and support of my immediate and extended family. My parents, David and Dorothy Johnson, have instilled in me a fierce work ethic and the good moral values that are necessary to be a good professional and person. I can never repay them for all that they have done for me. My in-laws, Spurgeon and Esther Lofton, have continued to provide love and support for my family. Trips to annual political science conferences and presentations would not have been possible without their help. This is truly amazing, considering they live in Houston and we live in St. Louis. The support, love, and encouragement of my wife, Janell Lofton-Minta, made the completion of the manuscript possible. She listened to my many ideas and read multiple iterations. When I had to work late writing or go to work-related events, Janell always picked up the slack for me. This was not an easy task, considering that she has a demanding career and is the mother of our three children, two who were born while I was completing this project. Most important, my wife and my children, Kendall, Braden, and Bryson, provide the balance between family and work that I need to be a complete person. I am truly blessed to have them in my life.

OVERSIGHT

1

Introduction

In 2005 Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region of the United States, causing major flooding and displacing many residents in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The storm was responsible for more than a thousand deaths, most of them in Louisiana. Many people were left homeless and with no place to turn for help. Although Louisiana state and local officials, such as Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin, received much of the blame from the national press and policymakers for not adequately responding to the disaster, the bulk of the criticism was directed toward the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Only weeks after President George Bush had praised FEMA director Michael Brown for the agency’s response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster—Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,¹ he said—intense criticism by the public and by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress led to Brown’s resignation.

Many members of Congress were outraged by the federal bureaucracy’s ineffective and slow response to the disaster. In 2005 and 2006, Congress conducted more than 130 hearings relating to the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Many high-ranking officials from FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency that houses FEMA, were called to testify before House and Senate committees. While FEMA’s efforts were universally criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, the explanations for why the federal response was inadequate and poorly managed became fiercely partisan and racially charged. In fact, Democrats refused to participate in the hearings held by the GOP-led House Select Committee, the House committee officially charged with investigating the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, preferring instead to launch an independent investigation into the federal government’s response. The Democrats most critical of the efforts of FEMA were members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).² The CBC and CHC requested that committee oversight hearings be held, sponsored legislation that required FEMA to do better disaster relief planning, and testified at various congressional hearings in support of residents who could not escape the disaster. Along with failing to provide appropriate shelter, food, and water for stranded residents, minority legislators argued, FEMA had neglected to provide adequate transportation to assist in evacuating the poorest, the disabled, and elderly citizens. Black and Latino legislators, echoing the sentiments of many leaders and residents in the black and Latino communities, argued that FEMA’s response would have been quicker and larger in scale if the affected residents had been white and affluent rather than black and poor. The Lower Ninth Ward, the area most affected by the breach of the levees in New Orleans, was more than 60 percent black and largely poor.

While all Democrats and Republicans were expressing their displeasure with federal relief efforts, then, black and Latino members of Congress were articulating the concerns and perspectives of groups that were largely underrepresented in congressional deliberations. Members of Congress from the Gulf Coast, such as Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and William Jefferson (D-LA), offered stinging criticism of the federal relief efforts for their constituents. In assessing under what conditions FEMA could have been more effective in responding to the disaster, Thompson said: We need someone to run the agency who is qualified. We just can’t have a political crony running an agency as important as FEMA. The other thing is that person has to have direct communication with the White House. That individual in time of an incident of national significance should not have to go through some chain of command to marshal the assets necessary to respond to that emergency. It just should not be.³

That legislators from Mississippi and Louisiana would advocate for their constituents is not surprising, but many minority legislators who were not from the affected areas also actively advocated for the interests of Hurricane Katrina victims. Black legislators such as Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, issued harsh statements regarding the federal government response. Cummings stated in a CBC press release: We cannot allow it to be said that the difference between those who lived and those who died in this great storm and flood of 2005 was nothing more than poverty, age or skin color.⁴ There were no Latino members of Congress representing either Louisiana or Mississippi—Latinos made up less than 5 percent of the residents in New Orleans—but Latino legislators from other states provided a voice for Latino interests in the affected areas. They argued that immigrant communities along the Gulf Coast were not receiving relief assistance because of language barriers.⁵ In addition to not receiving access to services, these legislators argued, Latino citizens and immigrants were being intimidated and harassed by relief workers and US Marshals. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) stated: Every victim is a victim. To pick out one victim and allow them to suffer greater consequences is not only appalling, it is inhumane. ⁶

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina serves as a stark reminder of how federal actions by agencies such as FEMA and DHS can profoundly affect the lives of Americans, as well as of the important role that Congress plays in holding these agencies accountable for their actions. The congressional oversight by minority legislators witnessed in the wake of Katrina also draws attention to important questions about the nature of congressional representation. In 2009, more than four years after Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana and Mississippi and long after the media spotlight had moved off the Gulf Coast, black and Latino members of Congress continue to actively devote their scarce time and resources to advocating on behalf of citizens who do not reside in their districts. Legislators who are not from the Gulf Coast states, such as Nydia Velazquez and Elijah Cummings, still show up at oversight hearings and make comments directing FEMA officials to devote more resources toward mostly class-based policies, such as affordable housing and community development, that are designed to improve the lives of poor and minority residents affected by the Hurricane Katrina disaster. What factors motivate these legislators to keep an eye on federal agencies in the absence of media attention?

The answer to this question is linked to debates about the nature of congressional representation that are older than the Constitution itself. The Constitution’s proponents (the Federalists), such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, argued that what is today called descriptive representation—in which the members of Congress resemble the groups present in society—is not essential for Congress to adequately represent the people. Though the concept of descriptive representation presumes that a group’s interests will be best served by a legislator from that group, the Federalists argued that this is not the case, as constituents can always use elections to remove legislators who do not represent their interests (Rossiter 1961). To borrow Madison’s example, one does not have to be a farmer to represent the interests of farmers in one’s district.

More than two hundred years later, political theorists and researchers continue to debate whether descriptive representatives are necessary to provide adequate representation of constituent interests in Congress. Studies of congressional activity, most of which focus on legislators’ voting records, have not