Meet the Congressman Who Cosponsored 435 Bills

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., right, and Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., left, co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, confer during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2011, to discuss jobs.
National Journal
Billy House
Add to Briefcase
Billy House
Aug. 7, 2013, 3 p.m.

When it comes to sign­ing onto le­gis­la­tion as co­spon­sors in Con­gress, lib­er­als are more lib­er­al with their pens.

Lib­rary of Con­gress re­cords show wide dis­par­it­ies in how much le­gis­la­tion law­makers choose to co­spon­sor. Some law­makers have ad­ded their sig­na­tures to hun­dreds of their col­leagues’ bills and amend­ments through the first sev­en months of this ses­sion, a Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily re­view has found. Oth­ers have been far more stingy.

Lead­ing the way in the House is Rep. Raul Gri­jalva of Ari­zona, a 10-term Demo­crat who has at­tached his sig­na­ture as a co­spon­sor to a whop­ping 435 bills or amend­ments — an av­er­age of al­most two a day. In the Sen­ate, Sen. Richard Blu­menth­al, D-Conn., leads the list with 248 co­spon­sor­ships.

“It’s got a little bit of act­iv­ism to it,” said Gri­jalva, who co­chairs the Con­gres­sion­al Pro­gress­ive Caucus, adding that he sees co­spon­sor­ing as an av­en­ue for law­makers in the minor­ity party to show their sup­port and con­nect with oth­er Demo­crats on is­sues they agree on, but which likely “won’t see the light of day” in terms of a vote.

The top 10 co­sign­ers in the House have each topped the 300-bill mark. Just one of them — Rep. Wal­ter Jones of North Car­o­lina (310) — is a Re­pub­lic­an.

In the Sen­ate, the 10 most-pro­lif­ic co­spon­sors have each signed onto at least 164 bills or amend­ments. All are Demo­crats, ex­cept GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine (187) and Roy Blunt of Mis­souri (185).

At the op­pos­ite end of the spec­trum — not count­ing top House lead­ers, who do not typ­ic­ally co­spon­sor many bills — are two South­ern Re­pub­lic­ans. In the House, Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga., in his second term, is the stingi­est in co­spon­sor­ing, with just 32 meas­ures. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., rep­res­ents the low in the Sen­ate, at 23.

For their parts, House Speak­er John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., have not co­sponsored any bills or amend­ments yet this ses­sion, not a big de­par­ture from past prac­tice (Boehner co­sponsored three meas­ures last ses­sion). Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal­if., has co­sponsored 19 meas­ures so far, and Minor­ity Whip Steny Hoy­er, D-Md., has co­sponsored 27.

Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev., has co­sponsored 38 bills and amend­ments, while Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky., has co­sponsored 70.

Shelby’s of­fice ex­plained in a state­ment that he does not co­spon­sor much le­gis­la­tion for “pro­ced­ur­al” reas­ons. “He rarely co­spon­sors bills upon in­tro­duc­tion be­cause they can change markedly in com­mit­tee from what he signed onto. And if he’s not a mem­ber of the com­mit­tee to which the bill is re­ferred, he doesn’t have the abil­ity to in­flu­ence wheth­er changes hap­pen there,” the state­ment ex­plained.

Woodall, in a state­ment, ex­plained, “Since day one, pur­pose­ful co­spon­sor­ship has been my goal. Rather than sign­ing every bill that comes across my desk, I fo­cus on those se­lect bills that I can be help­ful push­ing for­ward.”

Over­all, re­cords show that House Demo­crats av­er­aged 146 co­spon­sor­ships in the first sev­en months of the ses­sion, com­pared with 97 for Re­pub­lic­ans. Sen­ate Demo­crats av­er­age 119 co­spon­sor­ships, com­pared with 94 for Re­pub­lic­ans.

For a law­maker pro­pos­ing a bill, a high num­ber of co­spon­sors — es­pe­cially if those in­clude mem­bers of both parties — is something con­crete they can point to as evid­ence of sup­port.

Yet the prac­tice hasn’t al­ways been com­mon in both cham­bers, or even al­lowed. In fact, the House in 1909 ac­tu­ally banned the prac­tice as a re­form. But that was re­con­sidered in 1967 to al­low up to 25 co­spon­sors per bill, and in 1978 that lim­it was re­moved.

What do co­spon­sor­ships say about a law­maker?

There have been aca­dem­ic stabs at ana­lyz­ing the mo­tiv­a­tions — so­cial as well as polit­ic­al — be­hind the act of co­spon­sor­ing, res­ult­ing in a wide range of con­clu­sions and in­ter­pret­a­tions as to why le­gis­lat­ors pub­licly ex­press sup­port for a piece of le­gis­la­tion.

Some sug­gest law­makers who are most act­ive in co­spon­sor­ing tend to be less power­ful le­gis­lat­ors, of­ten new to Con­gress and eager to jump on le­gis­la­tion offered by oth­er law­makers.

Oth­er stud­ies sug­gest more soph­ist­ic­ated un­der­pin­nings, pos­it­ing that co­spon­sor­ship is one way for law­makers to sig­nal to those out­side of Con­gress their de­gree of sup­port on spe­cif­ic mat­ters.

Some stud­ies also go as far as to sug­gest there is a pos­it­ive link between lib­er­al­ism and fre­quent co­spon­sor­ship, or that pro­lif­ic co­spon­sor­ship is a func­tion of a pref­er­ence for big gov­ern­ment. Oth­ers sug­gest that it is, more than any­thing, a sig­nal of which law­makers are best con­nec­ted with­in a le­gis­lat­ive body.

“There tends to be a lot of re­cipro­city in co­spon­sorhip — you sign my bill and I’ll sign yours,” said James Fowl­er, a pro­fess­or of med­ic­al ge­net­ics and polit­ic­al sci­ence at Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (San Diego) and the au­thor of a 2006 study on the sub­ject. “Thus, many of these in­di­vidu­als are also very likely to be ‘re­ceiv­ing’ co­spon­sor­ships as well. And both send­ing and re­ceiv­ing co­spon­sor­ships are signs that a le­gis­lat­or is so­cially well-con­nec­ted with­in the cham­ber.”

Fowl­er said in an e-mail that his work showed that be­ing well-con­nec­ted in this way is im­port­ant. It means a law­maker is more likely to per­suade col­leagues; to take lead­er­ship roles in the party; or to seek and ob­tain high­er of­fice, he said.

“I think good le­gis­lat­ors know this in­stinct­ively, that these small signs of sup­port are baby steps to­wards form­ing the kinds of re­la­tion­ship one needs in or­der to be suc­cess­ful,” Fowl­er said. “But it is also pos­sible that some people just mim­ic the strategy without hav­ing any of the oth­er skills it would take to turn these small acts in­to le­gis­lat­ive suc­cess. So it’s not al­ways true that co­spon­sor­ing a lot is a sign of a good le­gis­lat­or, but most of the time it is.”

Gri­jalva con­curs that co­spon­sor­ing of­ten has a lot to do with per­son­al re­la­tion­ships. He said he co­spon­sors a bill for two reas­ons: Either the le­gis­la­tion is something he sup­ports, a state­ment of po­s­i­tion to be seen both by con­stitu­ents and fel­low law­makers, or it is a way to show sup­port for and ap­pre­ci­ation to col­leagues, in­clud­ing new­er law­makers.

Gri­jalva, a Mex­ic­an-Amer­ic­an, notes cor­rectly that a num­ber of the top co­spon­sors in the House are “people of col­or.” He adds, “This is a way to take some ac­tion, push back as a mem­ber of the minor­ity party,” and help to cre­ate “place­hold­ers” in terms of fu­ture agenda-set­ting.

Blu­menth­al, in a state­ment from his of­fice, de­scribed his pro­lif­ic co­spon­sor­ing as a sign of his eager­ness to work with many of his col­leagues on im­port­ant is­sues, re­gard­less of party.

“Dat­ing back to my 20 years as Con­necti­c­ut’s at­tor­ney gen­er­al, my philo­sophy has been that I will seek to open any door to find pos­it­ive solu­tions for the people of Con­necti­c­ut,” the fresh­man sen­at­or said. “As a mem­ber of five over­sight com­mit­tees with broad jur­is­dic­tion, I have an op­por­tun­ity to help vet­er­ans, con­sumers, seni­ors and stu­dents, and to lead le­gis­lat­ive ef­forts on ma­jor de­fense and gun safety ini­ti­at­ives. I am proud to have worked with so many of my col­leagues on both sides of the aisle on crit­ic­al is­sues.”

What We're Following See More »
Chef Jose Andres Campaigns With Clinton
6 hours ago
White House Weighs in Against Non-Compete Contracts
6 hours ago

"The Obama administration on Tuesday called on U.S. states to ban agreements prohibiting many workers from moving to their employers’ rivals, saying it would lead to a more competitive labor market and faster wage growth. The administration said so-called non-compete agreements interfere with worker mobility and states should consider barring companies from requiring low-wage workers and other employees who are not privy to trade secrets or other special circumstances to sign them."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
7 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

No Lobbying Clinton’s Transition Team
10 hours ago

Hillary Clinton's transition team has in place strict rules to limit the influence that lobbyists could have "in crafting the nominee’s policy agenda." The move makes it unlikely, at least for now, that Clinton would overturn Obama's executive order limiting the role that lobbyists play in government

Federal Government Employees Giving Money to Clinton
10 hours ago

Federal employees from 14 agencies have given nearly $2 million in campaign donations in the presidential race thus far, and 95 percent of the donations, totaling $1.9 million, have been to the Clinton campaign. Employees at the State Department, which Clinton lead for four years, has given 99 percent of its donations to the Democratic nominee.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.