Chapter 2 delves into the critical role of congressional hearings and witnesses during the committee stage, emphasizing their significance in shaping legislative outcomes and policy formulation. It explores how hearings serve as one of the prime avenues for information gathering, drawing from previous studies to highlight their impact on communication among legislators, interest groups, and bureaucrats. The chapter unpacks the intricate process of selecting witnesses, elucidating the process of inviting individuals who provide members of Congress information during the committee stage. It underscores the choices and variables present in this selection process – such as expertise, ideological leaning, and organizational affiliations. Ultimately, this chapter serves as a comprehensive primer on the process of witness selection for congressional hearings and describes the pivotal role played by witnesses in a key stage of policymaking.

The chapter begins by reviewing the long history of how Congress has procedural rules for itself and, in the process, created protections against majority tyranny while limiting the power of transient majorities to rewrite Americas laws. It also describes how members individual political need to depart from party platforms limits party leaders power and often promotes bipartisanship. The trouble is that these same rules facilitate gridlock, stoking anger and polarization across the wider society. The chapter concludes by analyzing how filibusters, supermajorities, and government shutdowns limit majority tyranny by supplying a practical test of when proposed legislation unduly burdens the minority.

Chapter 6 focuses on relationships in Congress, examining why some members are more likely to work together than others. As collaboration is an inherently relational activity that requires agreement between two or more actors, social network analysis is used to account for the interdependence of members. This chapter demonstrates that the relationships among members of Congress are a function of strategic considerations, personal relationships, and shared policy goals. Most notably, almost half of the relationships in the collaborative Congress are bipartisan, as members expect that working across the aisle will broaden the appeal of a policy and significantly increase the likelihood it will be successful. Even in a polarized environment, members are clearly motivated to try and find common ground with members of the opposite party. Members are also more likely to collaborate when they have mutual friends, are from the same state, or sit on the same committee, reflecting how the existing interpersonal and institutional relationships in Congress can lower the costs of collaboration.