---

Thanks

 

I have had a memorable and productive summer. I would particularly like to thank Professor Charles O. Jones, The English-Speaking Union, Jonathan Hills, Dr. John Kromkowski, Tyler Nottberg, Ryan Newman, Lieutenant Colonel Rodney Buckton who helped so much in preparing me and organising the trip. Also thanks to New College and all those members of the Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire branches of the ESU who generously sponsored my trip.

I could not have been made more welcome by Congressman Bilirakis and his staff, I appreciate all that they did. I was also very fortunate to be able to meet with some interesting people whilst I was in Washington. Special thanks go to Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Dan Crippen of the Congressional Budget Office and Dale Leibach of Powell Tate for so generously giving of their time.

After leaving Washington, I was able to travel around parts of the United States to see some of the country outside the bubble of Washington's beltway. I was able to stay in thirteen different towns and cities in the month before I came home and this was only possible with the wonderful hospitality of Gaye Sandier and Roger Miller, Professor and Mrs. Charles O. Jones, Mr. and Mrs. Braxton Moncure, Mr. David Barash, Mrs. Faye Bousel, Anita and Sarah Cunitz, Anton Gelman, Michael Freedman-Schnapp, Xandy Frisch, Rori Kramer, Max Brandy and Liz Simpson.

 

Each year the English-Speaking Union, through its Capitol Hill scholarship program, organises accommodation, office placements and visa sponsorship for twelve British university students to spend two months working in Congress. Being a student of politics this was certainly an opportunity to experience first-hand a political system which has such a large influence over world affairs and has such complex institutional interactions. After braving six months of the "oh, you're going to be an intern ...Monica Lewinsky was an intern ...be careful of strange men wielding cigars" comments I was finally ready to go. Flying into Reagan National Airport reminded me why I wanted to be there so much. The descent into Reagan gave me my first glimpse of a sight which for the whole summer would never fail to give me aglow inside, and put a smile on my face. There is something iconic about the sight of the dome of the Capitol, it is more than a building that looks like St. Paul's. Perhaps I am a victim of western propaganda, but that dome, the image of that dome, seems to symbolise in my mind all the clichés of freedom and idealistic representative democracy. Luckily any idealism about politics was soon overtaken by healthy cynicism, but nevertheless, for the whole summer I couldn't keep my eyes of the dome; it just seemed to gleam, it was unreal.

The English-Speaking Union Capitol Hill Interns

 

Washington DC is a fascinating city to live in. In many ways, it has an identity crisis, seemingly a town of contradictions. It is a city of 'the South' (the Mason-Dixie line is an hours drive to the North), yet its social life and culture is nearer what you might associate with the Northern states. Most of the people dressed in suits or hailing cabs are white, yet the majority of those who live in the district are Black or Hispanic. The Washington Mall which is the centre-piece of the city has the most wonderfully groomed, over polished and extremely elaborate monuments, yet less than twenty minutes walk can take you into what is best described as an armpit of America, full of the jobless, homeless and helpless; areas certainly in need of some of the attention given the Congressional lawns.

Washington police out in force for a licensed Neo-Nazi rally down Pennsylvania Avenue

 

Perhaps the most interesting contradiction in Washington concerns its politics. Washington is a town like any other in the US, yet constitutionally it is set up as if it isn't a town, as if it is simply the seat of the federal government; an island to which people from the fifty states come to decide policy on neutral ground. Residents of the District of Columbia are not represented in the Senate and the delegate who represents them in the House of Representatives has no voting privileges. Its status as a neutral seat of government means that the most politicised town in mainland America is also the least represented at the federal level.

Outside our time working on the Hill, there was certainly plenty to do in Washington. The museums, galleries, monuments and memorials which were all within walking distance of our apartments were all impressively designed and maintained. Each summer, the Washington Mall also hosts its folk-life festival in which two counties and one American state use the backdrop of the Capitol building and Washington Monument to teach Americans a little about a foreign heritage. The sight of a wooden Romanian church or South African tribal dancing in the heart of the heart of America allowed for some fascinating clashes of cultures.

We were also able to enjoy Washington ' s big day, the 4th July. It would be hard to exaggerate the length of the parades, the density and euphoria of the crowds, the size of the fireworks over the Washington monument or the 105 degree heat. When Americans set their mind to show off, they certainly impress and it was hard not to be swept away in the atmosphere.

July 4th in front of the Lincoln Memorial

Washington was certainly a welcoming and active city, full of young and politically motivated people. This allowed for plenty more to do. Simply wandering around, meeting people led to finding myself at a workshop to train political campaigners, an anti-Nazi rally and a meeting at Al Gore's campaign headquarters. Being in Washington opened itself to some great opportunities, opportunities which were both impressive and eye-opening.

 

One of the first things that I discovered about Congressman Michael Bilirakis was his success in electoral competition, or, more specifically, the lack of competition in the elections that he fought. In three out of the nine Congressional elections that he has contested since 1982, he has had no opponents. Whilst the notion of high incumbency returns is not alien to the American system (in 1998 over 98% of those Congressman seeking re-election were victorious), the concept of having unopposed elections to such high offices intrigued me.

The answer to why Congressman Bilirakis is so successful seems to be largely to do with the team that he surrounds himself with. More so than in British politics, it is fair to talk of a' congressman's office' as an institution. From my time in the office I developed a great admiration for the effectiveness of Congressman Bilirakis' staff in being able to serve the interests and reflect the views of the voters of Florida's 9th District. I say this regardless of the fact that I disagreed with the Congressman's stand on almost every issue. In a democracy the elected should serve the interests of the electors and I was grateful of the opportunity to work within a political office that did just that. The electoral results seem to show that the residents of Clearwater, Palm Harbor and Dunedin are glad to be represented by such an office.

Congressman Michael Bilirakis

 

I was extremely fortunate that the permanent staff realised that I was looking for an educational as well as work experience from the summer. This meant that as well as having my share of time as being a 'cog in the office machine' (the politically correct way of describing data-entry, stuffing envelopes and fighting with the photocopier) I was given chance to do a variety of other tasks. These included opening the vast mail-bag; giving constituent tours of Congress; writing and researching replies to constituent mail (I now know far more about low-flow toilets than is healthy for someone of my age); shadowing the Congressmen at some events such as rallies, hearings and television tapings, as well as attending and taking notes at staff briefings, committee hearings, and some of the huge array of meetings held by special interest groups.

Each of these showed me different aspects of American the political system. For example simply reading the mail or giving tours of Congress to constituents gives quite an insight the American political culture, and how those outside the bubble of Washington see themselves and their representatives within the system. The tours gave me the chance to find my way around the history and architecture of the Capitol, although for some strange reason my shoelace always became untied in front of a picture of the British troops burning down the old Capitol building.

At first it was a shock to see that mail would come in, go to the appropriate legislative assistant and then sometimes end up on my desk to draft a reply before being signed by another member of staff before being sent out. The shock was both that I seemed to be the only person in the office unauthorised to sign the Congressman's signature and that the Congressman saw so little of his mail bag. At first this made me immensely cynical, yet observing the process more carefully showed that it all fits together. Although the Congressman didn't see the letters, if ever he was to take part in a debate or meeting on an issue he was well briefed as to what kind of letters and how many the office had received on the subject. This also works the other way. The constituents also find themselves with a more detailed and better researched reply from a member of the staff who specialises in that particular area. Whilst the individual, brush-strokes look messy when you stand too close, the picture of how the office works forms cohesively when all the parts are viewed as a whole. Again, electoral success for Congressman Bilirakis seems largely due to his responsiveness to his constituent's interests, and this machine certainly made him responsive.

The Staff of Congressman Michael Bilirakis' office, as photographed by M. Bilirakis

 

The most interesting part of the internship was being able to attend the various briefings, hearings and meetings that are constantly going on around the Hill. Regardless of the issues that were being discussed, observing the interactions of the major players as well as those around them was fascinating. I was always interested to find out who was in each room and why they were there, and I soon found myself striking up conversations with the lobbyists, legislative assistants and press in the audience of a committee hearing. Such conversations were often a greater source of information than listening to the prepared statements coming from the platform.

Congressman Bilirakis sits on the influential Commerce Committee and has been assigned to chair its sub-committee on health and environmental issues and is also involved on the energy and power sub-committee. This means that the bulk of the legislative activity in the office is related to these areas and so I spent much of my time hopping around between meetings about transforming the Environmental Protection Agency, changing prescription procedures for Medicaid and the encouragement of competition within the electricity industry. Although these are not such 'sexy' topics, coming from the office of a member on the committee allows great access to how legislation comes about. Something important in the American system is how much the various committees legislate independently of the executive branch. Seeing, first-hand, members and their assistants barter and trade amendments before going into the committee room to 'mark-up' legislation certainly taught more about law making than is possible from reading books in a university library.

In addition to committees, there were many meetings hosted by congressmen or lobbyists eager to attract anyone who 'might have any access to anyone who might the power to persuade a member to co-sponsor a bill or even speak positively in a debate on their behalf. As well as being assigned to take notes at such meetings I was able to gain time out of the office to attend those of interest (another advantage of opening the mail, not a lot of invitations get missed). These ranged from game-show hosts moaning about the inhumane treatment of elephants in India, to lunches discussing the possible future of cancer treatments. It is a stereotype that Americans don't have a grasp of irony but I was pretty sure that I was the only person with a rye smile on my face when, in one lunch meeting, a phone call with some hunger strikers in Cuba was interrupted to remind the audience that there was plenty more food if anyone wanted second helpings of the authentic Cuban cuisine. It was, however, not surprising as it was clear that the best attended meetings were those offering hospitality, and my stomach led me to learn things that I would never have otherwise have stumbled across.

Because of the huge amount of interns on the Hill during the summer (someone once told me it was close to a thousand) a full program of lectures was laid on. Again, the staff in my office were very keen for me to attend these and gave me the time to do so. It has been said that you cannot truly appreciate the brilliance of Pink Floyd until you have seen them performing live. I can now say equally that you cannot fully appreciate the problem with Senate majority leader Trent Lott until you have seen him speak to a room full of those that adore his nationalistic fanaticism. Other speakers included General Henry Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and second only to the President in the American military; Representative Dick Armey, House Majority Leader; Senator Tom Daschle, Senate minority leader; Senator Paul Wellstone (an inspirational speaker) and Colonel Oliver North who spoke quite frankly about how he lied to Congress, but didn't lie when he was asked if he lied to Congress, and anyway, when he lied to Congress he was told to tell those lies by someone who is lying when he says that he didn't tell North to lie (or something like that, all I know is that there was a fair amount of lying going on).

Another highlight of my time on the Hill was being able to have individual meetings to question some of those who work in various parts of the system. As a political science student there is always a point when you come against a wall. This is usually when you start asking the questions of what really motivates people to do as they do and how they perceive their roles in an institutional framework. The textbooks will always go through the institutional possibilities and even the game theory of how players should act in a political situation, but this is still hypothecation. Having the opportunity to ask a Senator if he views his role as working for his individual state's interest or the national interest; or ask a member of the bureaucracy about how he views the need for impartiality; or ask a journalist whether, when they write a loaded editorial, they see themselves as acting as a fourth branch of government; or ask a lobbyist how they view democratic ideals when they invest huge sums to work for the interests of firms, was a rare opportunity , and gave me further insights into the working of the 'Washington community'. Congressman Bilirakis was very generous in giving his time to speak to me, as were Senator Lugar of Indiana, Daniel Crippen who directs the Congressional Budget Office, John Andrews of the Economist and Dale Leibach of Powell rate.

My first appearance in a major American newspaper, page 3 of the July 28th Washington Tmies shows me listening intensely at the back of a committee hearing regarding low-flow toilets.

 

'The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. " Article 1 Section 8, the .Constitution of the United States.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respective/y, or to the people. " The l0th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Having worked in both the British and American legislatures and studied both systems there are some interesting observations that need to be made. Both the British and American systems historically seem to be linked, yet there are many institutional and cultural differences that make Capitol Hill and Westminster completely different beasts. In addition, there are some interesting features of the American system that are worth highlighting.

When looking at the legislatures, the first point that is essential to make and stress over and over again, is the huge difference in the sizes of the two governments. This aspect is apparent in so many ways, and for good reason. The British parliament has about 650 MP representing about 57 million people. The House of Representatives, in comparison, has about 430 representing 270 million. To put this in other terms, the Member of Parliament within whom I worked for at Easter was representing the interests of about 80,000 people; United States Congressmen seem to typically serve about 600,000 people. Although it would be facile to suggest that this increases Members of Congress' importance ten fold, it has a huge impact on how the different offices operate, something which was apparent as soon as I walked through the doors of the office in Washington.

To give an example. When I was working in the UK, I was part of a staff of two others. Together, we were running two MP's parliamentary offices. I was there for only a few weeks, one girl was an American college student, there for five months and the other (the most permanent) was there for a year taking a break between high school and university .Two parliamentary offices were being run by three people who Americans would give the label 'intern' to. Only one of the staff was on a salary. There was a single constituency office in each of the MPs' constituencies, but each had only one full time employee and the rest of the work was done by voluntary staff. This arrangement seemed to be typical (outside the select world of the 'high profile' MP's) and the workload seemed to match the staffing needs. In addition to this, one of the MP's (who was also Minister for Energy, Science and Industry) insisted on seeing every piece of mail that came to the office. Although there was a lot of mail that came in, this was by no means an impossible task.

In contrast, in the one office of Michael Bilirakis, there was one chief of staff, one legislative director, two legislative assistants, one 'press guy', three 'fellows', an office manager, an accountant (who works two days a week), a secretary and two or three interns, all of whom are always busy. There are also three constituency offices. The mail came three times a day, each bundle bigger than the daily mail in the UK offices and the Congressman didn't even sign his own name on the outgoing responses, and would get chance to read only a tiny fraction of the mail. Unlike in the United Kingdom I believe that in Congress it is fair to talk of the 'office of a Congressman' as distinct from the actions of the Congressman himself. An analogy might be to distinguish '10 Downing Street' from the Prime Minister or the 'White House Machine' from the individual President, although actions are being done in the name of the Congressman, the structure surrounding him is too vast to expect personal control over all aspects of its dealings. It is necessary to stress the point about size because it is certainly the most striking difference between the UK and US, and one that is seemingly overlooked in the many comparative government books.

In addition to the increased size of constituency there is also the far larger budget that Congress has to spend compared to Parliament. This has to elevate the importance of each Representative, and observing them suggests that they know it. The UK's economy can almost be looked at as to the scale of a very big state government, I'm sure its GDP is less than California's.

The next thing that must be noted when comparing Parliament to Congress is the actual legislative role of the two legislatures. Another reason for the staff in Congressman Bilirakis' office being so much greater than that of MP's is that the Congressional staff seem to be active legislators. In the UK, legislation typically comes down from the executive, is analysed and dissected by Parliament, amended slightly (but not dramatically) and then passed. This is because of unification between the executive and legislative and strong party discipline. My time in DC gave me the impression that Congress really has a right to call itself a 'legislature', compared to a British Parliament which seems to just be a check on executive legislation and behaviour and a source of ideas and personnel for the various ministries. This is not to say the House of Commons isn't capable of legislating, but from my experience, it just didn't. Of course, with split government (the Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress and the Democrats the White House), Congress probably uses more legislative initiative than it might under unified government.

This relates largely to the role of committees and their independence compared to those in the UK. Before going to Washington, I wrote an essay about how committee chairs are seen as a source of leadership in Congress and having practical experience of only the British system, not really believing it. My time in Washington made me believe it. Although I haven't had chance to see the workings of the influential Rules, Appropriations or Ways and Means Committees, I have witnessed their impact shadowing over the House. They are often referred to and their leadership obviously has a high profile on the Hill. Conversations in the office talk of getting things 'through the rules committee'. This is not comparable to any institution in Westminster. As with everything in Parliament, the committees are organised largely through the party hierarchy and so the question would be 'getting something through the party leadership', not through the committees. Although Congressional committee appointments are made in a partisan manner, once in place, the members show great independence.

Within the Committees (and this is something I witnessed a few times), you can see the power of the Chairman. In sub-committees this is particularly interesting as often the full committee chair and sub- committee chairs are present. It is clear how much control these people have, over setting the agenda, deciding on witnesses and eventually in creating the legislation that follows. Again, this can be seen as control of the individual committee chair, not just the party in majority, something which appears alien to the British system.

The other aspect of the committees is something else that I didn't truly believe from previous studies. This feature is the extent that committees see the legislation that they pass to the House floor as 'their own'. I'm sure this point relates to the observation that Congress is truly a legislature and the bills are from its members, rather than the executive. In the British system it will be the relevant minister and his opposition shadow that will lead a floor debate not the committee chair and ranking member. There are certainly a lot of possible sources of leadership in Congress and depending on what areas are being legislated in, members will change from being leaders to followers quite easily.

There is also a huge difference in the bicameral nature of the two countries. Again, because of current reforms this may change in the UK, but I believe the Royal Commission's brief was still to design a chamber which would uphold the dominance of the House of Commons. In Parliament, the important things happen in the Commons, with the Lords there as a 'check and balance'. Indeed, the extent of the power of the (present) Lords is to only delay a bill's passage by a year. It has no veto. The Salisbury convention prevents the House of Lords from delaying any legislation from the government's electoral manifesto. This is quite a contrast to the United States. It truly is a wonder to me that any legislation ever passes through Congress. The Senate is as powerful, if not more powerful, than the House of Representatives and it is quite amazing (from a British perspective) how much contact there is between the two chambers. In my first week on the Hill, I was lucky enough to be in a meeting of GOP steel caucus aids. A representative from a Senator's office (1 think it was Senator Byrd) was explaining to the people in the House the new strategy that both Houses should adopt following a defeat in the Senate of a bill. Not only was the Senate side informing the House, there was also clearly some negotiation taking place. Such negotiations must occur to an extent in Parliament, but in no way to the extent that it does here and not at the level of individual MP's and individual Members of the Lords.

The other point to make as an observer of the American system is the difference between the House and Senate. To put it bluntly, the Senate is a classier affair. This is understandable, the Senators from California represent more people than do most heads of state, add to this six year terms and the right to filibuster (the ability for any Senator to talk down and so veto any legislation unless there is a 60% vote to defeat the filibuster) and soon you're noticing that these people are pretty important. The Senate is expected to legislate in almost as many areas as the House (the Senate cannot create budget bills), yet Senators are outnumbered by Representatives by over four to one. This means that each Senator requires a staff far larger than those elected to the House side. Larger staffs add further layers to the legislative negotiations as they each form their own mini-bureaucracies. The difference between the House and Senate is visible as soon as you cross onto the Senate side of the Capitol building and even more in the Senate office complexes. In the House of Lords there is also a contrast in the tone compared to the Commons, but for reasons of history and tradition, not because of individual Lords having any institutional superiority.

Professor Charles 0. Jones describes America as a having a "government of parties, not party government". I left for Washington with that in my head and every day it become more and more apparent. The Parliamentary offices that I worked in were covered in Red Roses. They were everywhere and it makes sense that they were. With very few exceptions, each MP gained election because of the popularity of their party , not of themselves. This means they may justifiably see their role as being part of the party machine. Such affiliation is not seen in the United States. Considering I was working in a Republican office, the most I saw of elephants was at a presentation about animal cruelty in India. There was a GOP briefing and Whip notice which came through the fax machine each morning, but apart from that, there is very little trace of the national party machine. This is even more surprising when it is seen that Congressman Bilirakis supports the GOP line in over 90% of votes. This, however, does not mean there is no trace of the party; 'government of parties' is an extremely apt description. Whilst there is not the party discipline that there is in the UK, there is clearly partisanship, particularly in rhetoric. Votes do go along partisan lines, but without the coercive whips apparent in the UK. Republicans vote with the Republicans because of a feeling of shared interests, rather than because of authority from above or loyalty to a party hierarchy. This partisanship from below I believe is different from the centralised parties of the UK and means that in the United States, the best party leads follow rather than lead.

A word that highlights the American party system is one that is heard a lot less in the UK, 'bipartisanship'. I think it is interesting to pick up on this word because the use of it means that it is a surprise, or at least that it is assumed that partisanship is the norm. It is, however, used so frequently that it highlights the lack of party discipline and the amount that members do work with those from the other side. I hope that I have explained that point clearly. In the UK the only time you hear the term bipartisan used is regarding issues of national defence or crisis, Northern. Ireland or perhaps Lib-Lab co-operation. In Congress, however, every committee seems to claim some degree of bipartisanship. This bipartisanship is something they seem extremely proud of. This is the difference between adversarial and consensual systems of government, yet the US is far from lacking in the partisan mud slinging. Americans will continually moan about how partisan their politics is yet from a British perspective it is staggering how consensual it is. Whilst it is true that little legislation does get through Congress, if there was partisanship to the degree that it is present in the UK, absolutely nothing (short of a bill to rename a few federal libraries) would ever find its way onto the statute book. Consensus is forced by institutions which under British partisanship would lead to permanent gridlock. In a study of post-war Congresses, David Mayhew's book 'Divided we govern' suggests that the statistics show periods of divided government (a different party running the White House to the party running Congress) are as productive at legislating as periods under united government.

A point related to partisanship is the independence of Congressmen. I'm sure that independence is greater in the Senate, but even in the House you feel that people lobbying in meetings are trying to persuade each individual member. Whilst there is party leadership with some power, it is clear that legislative success comes from persuading members, not just the party machine. When I was in a meeting and introduced myself as being from a Floridian Congressman's office, this would become clear. They would usually have researched each member's district and had an individual ready to explain how the legislation would affect Florida generally or Clearwater specifically. They made sure that those from every office were talked to, not going only for those with party leadership positions. It is perhaps surprising that this was a surprise for me, but I genuinely was. In the UK, although groups will lobby MP's, it is always their secondary activity .Such lobbying is usually more to do with educating the MP's of the salience of an issue, rather than persuading them to back a certain position. The power in the UK lies in the centre and so it is facile to spend too much time or money lobbying the infantry .The reverse ( or to some extent the reverse) is true in the US. An example of this, which also clarified to me the significance of the separation of powers, was when I found myself being lobbied heavily by a government agency. Not only was I surprised to see an executive agency (1 think it was the Environmental Protection Agency) having to sell itself to the legislature, but further, I was shocked to see that they were clearly trying to persuade each member individually, with personalised information for each district. It is amazing how firmly people will shake you by the hand when you say you are from a Congressman's office, I still am quite shocked at the perception of the power of each of the individual members. In the UK, only those on the front bench (and then usually only ministers) would expect to be given such attention.

Only recently has it been suggested that such independence should give way to a national political agenda. In 1994 Newt Gingrich led the House Republicans to their first House majority in over forty years. Gingrich believed that his electoral success was due to his 'Contract with America', the nearest that an American party has had to a national manifesto a document that each of the GOP candidates had signed ceremonially on the steps of Congress. The problem with the Gingrich was that he was wrong. The majority of those who voted Republican had never even heard of the 'Contract with America' and those Republicans elected were elected because of local issues or general dissatisfaction with the Clinton administration. These members therefore refused to play Gingrich's game and although the 'Contract' had some early success, it soon became unravelled.

Outside the legislatures there is also huge differences between the United Kingdom and the United States relating to federalism. Considering current developments in Scotland and Northern Ireland some of this might need future qualification, but nevertheless, federalism is a feature of American political life that isn't present in the United Kingdom. Although at university I had read about the 'federal nature of the US' and I have even written essays about it, I certainly had not truly comprehended its meaning until the first Congressional hearing I attended. You really get the feeling that Congressmen have travelled from their states to this place that the people they represent are intensely sceptical of, to fight for the best deal for their individual district. Although there is some of this feeling in the UK (such as because of social demographic interests in certain regions), there is nothing comparable to the 'state nationalism' that is evident in America. Every time I heard someone from Texas speak I half expected them to declare war on one of their neighbouring states. Many in Congress seem to see themselves as Texan or Floridian first, and American second. There is some of this in Scotland, Wales and certainly (half of) Northern Ireland, but outside the nationalist parties, such views are seldom aired so strongly. From my limited experience of the Senate side (through my meeting with Senator Lugar and occasionally hearing their debates on the office TV), this consciousness of state interests is even stronger there.

The other striking aspect of federalism, not seen in the UK, is probably more important. There is real respect and acknowledgement of the power of governing bodies outside the 'Washington Beltway'. This is of course largely constitutional, there is no governing body in the UK which Westminster can't remove compared to a Congress which can only legislate "...to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States"; constitutionally, state legislatures are sovereign to legislate in all other areas. The power of other bodies also seems related to the 'state nationalism' suggested above as well as the size of the US making it impossible to govern from one place.

This multi-dimensional governing structure is highlighted when Congressional committee Chairmen call in constitutional experts to ask whether Congress has the authority to legislate in certain areas, or how certain legislation would clash with state legislation. Such questioning is common on the Hill because unlike the British parliament, Congress is not sovereign over the whole country. As a Briton, used to powerless local government, federalism certainly adds a fascinating new dimension to the legislative process.

The American and British 'political cultures' are also incredibly different, a surprise to me. This was made evident in the content of debate. If I had a dollar for every time I heard 'God' mentioned in debates, I'd have enough money to challenge George W. Bush for President. This is particularly interesting because of the constitutional separation between church and state. Not only was God mentioned in debates about religion (and there were plenty of those in the time that I was there), but also in debates about almost everything else. America is a far more religious country than the UK and it is clear in its politics. Something that they forget to stress in political science literature is that American culture is not about the melting pots of New York or Los Angeles, places of radicalism and modem thought. Instead, America is about Virginia, Indiana, Mississippi and Montana; traditional places with traditional values. As I was leaving America a debate was igniting as to whether they should teach evolution in schools. I am amazed to have to say that spending time in Washington has led me to believe that at its core, the US is a Christian fundamentalist country .American organised religion exerts far more power over government than is evident in the United Kingdom even though our constitution gives voting rights to Bishops and makes the Head of State, the Head of the Church.

Linked to this is the difference in the 'centre ground' of US politics compared to the UK. The political status-quo in America is well to the right of the status-quo in the UK. This isn't just about welfare and healthcare issues, but American 'centrist' views towards defence, religion, guns, abortion, taxation seem comparable to the views of those only at the fringes of the British Conservative party. I'm sure our political culture is a shock to the Americans as well, and that most Republicans would be surprised at the welfare provisions in even one of Margaret Thatcher's budgets. I wish I could describe the venom with which some Republican's used the word 'liberal' .The consensus in Congress (and I believe this holds for a large proportion of Democrats) seems to be that small government is good government, except for defence in which case bigger is always better. Qualification is, however, necessary at this point. The vast size of the US, both in area and population and the array of differing communities and cultures means that talking of an ' American political culture' is a gross simplification and generalisation. There is a North-South cultural divide apparent in the two hundred miles that separate London from Newcastle in England as there is a divide between those in up-state New York compared to the residents of Manhattan, extrapolate this difference to that between Boston and urban Georgia and it is clear that the US could never claim to be homogenous. With this qualification in mind, to British ears, the debates and conversations in Congress do seem to have a particularly 'rightist' tone.

A further indication of the political culture of the US could be seen to be the groups which seem particularly strong in lobbying the elected officials. Perhaps I haven't had enough experience of the British system, but I certainly had the impression that lobbying is more overt in the US (although as with McDonalds and Hollywood Movies I'm sure it won't take long to move its full force across the Atlantic).

The organisations which were the most striking in their influence seemed to be the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Israeli lobby and the multitude of groups working for veterans affairs. It was interesting to see the access that they seemed to have within Congress, the investments that they were making in their lobbying, as well as their obvious power to mobilise constituents to write to complain. I was amazed how quickly my views of guns changed whilst in the US. I left home with idealistic views of how British gun controls seem to work and that all the US needs to do is ban all guns, but soon I realised that this simply couldn't happen. There is a legally held firearm for every man, woman and child in the United States, over two hundred million guns in legal circulation. Pandora ' s box was opened a long, long time ago and the measures that were brought in Britain after the Dunblane shootings simply wouldn't have an effect. Guns are a part of American culture and for as long as the criminals have them, the law- abiding citizens feel they need some protection. Although this implies that I was moved to support the gun-lobby I was not, instead I realised that the epidemic must be controlled and not stopped. This was a good example of a situation that showed me that policy cannot be seen as globally universal, different cultures require different policy and with hindsight I can see my initial ignorance of the American situation.

This cultural difference was also shown with regards to veteran's affairs. As a member of generation described as 'Thatcher's children' my view of veterans was largely limited to those in generations preceding my parents, because of their numbers I never saw them as a political force. In the US, however, Congress is covered in POW-MIA flags and meetings were constantly being held. At first I couldn't understand this until it was pointed out that US veterans are people in the baby-boomer generation, those who fought in Korea and Vietnam, not just in Germany and Japan. Added to this, the US army is traditionally far larger (per head of the population) than that of the United Kingdom. Once this is understood it is clear why the veteran's lobby is so powerful. Observations and insights such as these taught me a great deal about the American political system, features that without such an experience I would have found it hard to comprehend.

In the complex institutional balances that make up the American political system, the President occupies a strange role. Having spent the summer in Congress my perception of the role of the President has dramatically changed. Richard Neustadt describes presidential power as being the "power to persuade", this seemed extremely clear. Although as Neustadt notes, every member of the Washington Community is "compelled to watch him", he is as dependent on them as they are on him. The point that is important to make is that the world (and American) media seem to give too much weight to a branch of government which is institutionally not as strong as it is perceived. A British Prime Minister with any form of workable majority is free to act unilaterally and powerfully in almost all areas of policy. When the British Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers his budget, it is passed as a formality. When an American President, however, suggests his budget, a year or more of debate can follow. This can lead to gridlock and governmental shutdown, as was evident during some of the Gingrich-Clinton budget battles. Even in sending troops into war the President can be limited by a Congress refusing to grant appropriations for conflict that they don't approve of, as was threatened to be the case recently in Kosovo. The point being made is that the President seems overrated in the American system and gains more column inches than his power to veto legislation deserves. There are of course obvious exceptions, FDR, Johnson, Reagan, but my experience over the summer suggested that Congress does have an upper-hand over the White House.

Throughout the summer I felt a distinct lack of presence of the administration in the work that was being done. There were a few occasions when government agencies would host meetings to try and persuade members to support their programs and committees would regularly have representatives of administrative departments in front of them, but I never observed any indication of pressure from the administration. Even in the Washington Post, coverage of the Presidency seemed limited to his role as 'celebrity in Chief' and the race to see who would win in 2000. I was somewhat disappointed. It is a nice image to think of the huge country centring around one man who controls the nuclear button with one hand and healthcare with the other, but this does not seem to be the case. Washington is far more complex than that and Congress is far more relevant to US policy than it is given credit for. As with all generalisations this should be qualified somewhat. The President is currently in his 'lame-duck' period of office, he cannot run again and so his programs cannot be expected to be long-term. Although popular, any political capital that he had has been drained by scandal and impeachment. This was not atypical administration. In addition to this, it should be noted that I spent the summer in the office of a staunch Republican; it would have been a waste of time and resources for the administration to attempt to lobby anywhere near Congressman Bilirakis. Even with these points in mind, I still have the strong impression that too much attention is paid to the Presidency compared to other institutions in Washington. This contrasts with the United Kingdom which I believe institutionally lends itself to the possibility of complete domination by a strong executive.

It is also worth mentioning the differences between the judiciaries of the US and the UK. In the United Kingdom, if the court disagrees with legislation, the court is wrong (this might change with the adoption of the Human Rights Act (which introduces the European Convention on Human Rights onto the British statute books), but has been a sound statement for the past two hundred years). Judicial review exists in the UK for executive action, but legislation cannot be objected to be the judiciary. This is not the certainly not the case in the United States. All legislation may be challenged against the constitution, with the judgement being given by nine unelected Supreme Court Justices. These judges are free to choose what cases to hear and how to read the constitution. Because of the power of the Supreme Court, there were many occasions when I heard members openly talk of having to pre-empt judicial involvement when drafting legislation. This notion of the government not being sovereign because of what is seen as almost a 'divine' constitution is quite a culture shock. To see an active third branch of government again reminded me of the stark differences between governmental systems which both come from the 'liberal democratic' mould.