|
MOUNT MADONNA SCHOOL
Interview with
Edward Corrigan
Legislative Director,
Senator Robert Smith (R-NH)
May 19th, 2000
Student: What can you tell us about your
responsibilities as the legislative director?
Mr. Corrigan: My responsibilities are
to supervise the legislative departments of the Senator's
office. That would be the correspondence, which is answering
the constituent mail, as well as supervising the legislative
assistants who analyze legislation. I advise the Senator
when votes come up in terms of what the various positions
are, so that he can help make a decision on how to vote.
Also I help write bills, amendments, and speeches, and
follow the floor for the Senator. We have TVs in our
office, so we're always watching C-SPAN to see what's
happening on the floor. When there's a vote that comes
off, you see those lights light up and that bell rings.
From nine to two, each of those little black marks have
a light in here, and there's a sequence of signals for
the lights on whether there's a vote, or how much time
is left, and things like that. So any time the bell
goes off, I'll grab whoever my assistant is, bring them
into the Senator's office, and we'll discuss what the
vote is and the position he wants to take. That's just
an overview of what the responsibilities are. I supervise
that process, and then in general, we formulate a proactive
legislative agenda for the Senator. We help him decide
where he wants to focus, and what he wants to achieve
for the year.
Derrick Diaz: What made you decide on a career
of public service?
Mr. Corrigan: I
got interested in politics in college, and started feeling
strongly about various issues. After I came down to
Washington to try and find a job, and felt that Senator
Smith was the person who best represented my beliefs,
which are of a conservative philosophy. So I was fortunate
enough to get a brief internship and then a job in his
office.
Jahmin Lerum: What's the most challenging
part of your job?
Mr. Corrigan: Well, the mail
is always a challenging part of it. That is keeping
up and making sure that people are getting timely and
substantive responses. When people take the time to
write to their Senator, Senator Smith strongly believes
that people deserve to get a nice substantive response.
We try to give them a position on what they've written
in on to the best extent possible. We strive for that.
That's always a challenge, especially when there's an
issue that's very high-profile, for example, the Elian
Gonzalez matter. That was something that we got a lot
of mail on. There were thousands of letters every day,
coming in on that, so we had to try and keep up with
answering those letters. So that can at times be the
most challenging part. Also just helping him to keep
on top of the various proactive initiatives that he
has legislatively, and to keep following the floor.
The Senate is a little bit less structured than the
House is, in terms of getting legislation passed. You
get people who call you up and say what's coming up
tomorrow, and the answer is inevitably, we don't know.
I mean there's no schedule to it. You may have an idea
that there's going to be some nominations tomorrow,
or something along those lines, but until it actually
happens you really have to watch C-SPAN and keep track
of what's going on because things just pop up. Sometimes
you have to run over to the floor, or call the floor.
They have a system in the Senate called the Hotline.
There's three people in the office that have a special
telephone line in their phone. With the Republican Cloakroom
and the Democratic Cloakroom, they'll have the same
system. What the Senate does is by unanimous consent,
and what that means is if any single Senator objects
to an agreement then they can't get things done. Some
bill may be designating a week as National Students
Week, or a major trade bill with China, and they want
to put together an agreement on it. What they'll do
is they'll send a Hotline, so my phone will ring and
some other people's in the office will ring. Then you'll
pick it up and they say, "Well, we're trying to get
an agreement on passing this bill, and if your Senator
has an objection, call the Cloakroom in two minutes."
So if you don't call back, the bill will pass. That's
something that you've always got to keep track of, because
if you have a problem with the bill, and you need debate,
or you need to learn a little bit more about it, you
have to call back quick or you're going to miss your
opportunity.
Laura Johnson: Lincoln said in his debate
with Stephen Douglas, "You can't separate moral questions
from political questions." He went on to say, "Isn't
it false statesmanship to try to make policy based
on caring nothing about the very thing that people
care the most about?" What place do you think moral
issues should have in the political debate?
Mr. Corrigan: I think Senator Smith believes that it should
be at the top. The idea that morality and politics can
somehow be divided is totally foreign to his philosophy.
I think he would agree with Lincoln that politics is
by its very nature based on morality because we're always
making determinations about yes or no. Essentially,
we're deciding what is right and what is wrong. Some
of these issues concern spending money here or there,
or some minor decision, but frequently, the votes will
be questions that go to the heart of values and morals,
and so when we decide how to vote, all of our values
and our moral beliefs are brought into play.
Katie Fayram: Congressman Sensenbrenner told
us that while he had not yet read the decision on
the Supreme Court ruling on the Violence Against Women
Act, he imagined that they would look to see if they
could find a way to pass the law, and accomplish their
goal without running afoul with the Supreme Court.
How do you think the Senate will respond?
Mr. Corrigan: I'm not quite familiar
with the decision, and I'll have to take a look at that,
but it's hard to say how the Senate will respond. I
know that Senator Smith is always concerned about pushing
legislation and trying to craft legislation to get around
some constitutional problems, because inevitably you're
just pushing Congress into a circumstance where they
really don't belong. I don't know what their problems
are with that particular bill. I know he voted for the
Violence Against Women Act, and so I assume that he
did not believe at the time that it was unconstitutional.
However other legislative initiatives have passed and
recently been declared unconstitutional. Usually the
people who supported them or sponsored them will try
and throw something in there to see if they can get
it past the Supreme Court. Sometimes you get a little
too cute, and you've got to go back, read the Constitution,
decide what your responsibilities are and stick to them.
Karl Holzknecht: Benjamin Franklin once said
that those who sacrifice essential liberties to obtain
a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
To what extent can we or should we pass laws to limit
liberties in order to enhance public safety?
Mr. Corrigan: Well,
that's a great quote, I'll have to keep that one on
file. I think Senator Smith is one who believes that
Franklin is right, and that our personal liberties go
hand in hand with our safety. Sometimes, when you allow
the government to infringe upon your personal liberties
even if the argument is that it's going to enhance public
safety, it doesn't wind up doing that. Obviously, gun
control is an area where this comes into play, very,
very much. If you look at Castro, when he took over
in Cuba, the second day of the revolution they went
door to door and started rounding up everybody's guns.
That's what a tyrannical government will do, and what
Senator Smith believes is that personal safety involves
the right to defend yourself against predators, or violent
criminals in your neighborhood that could be threatening
you, and that we need to protect that right for people.
Even though it sounds good to promote gun control as
a way to solve public safety, the evidence shows that
it doesn't in fact do that.
Josh Lewis: We've heard from several people
in the State Department, including Undersecretary
Pickering, that lack of funding is putting our embassies
at risk, because they cannot afford appropriate security
upgrades. Would your Senator support increased spending
for that purpose?
Mr. Corrigan: I don't
know what we would support on that issue. He's generally
been concerned with excessive funding on foreign aid
in general. However, in terms of appropriately funding
our embassies, we certainly wouldn't want to allow a
lack of funding to be a risk to their security. In other
areas like that, we would want to at least make sure
that our diplomatic missions are capable of providing
the services they need to. He's kind of a frugal type
person, and doesn't want to spend too much money if
it's not necessary. We'd have to take a look and see
what the adjustments are that are needed, and make sure
that they're not going overboard.
Mr. Mailliard: That reminds me of a story
that George Schultz told one time about when he was
very young, and testifying before one of the House
committees. He asked the secretary of the treasury
at that point, whether Democrats or Republicans spent
more money. He replied that they both like to spend
money, but the Democrats enjoy it.
Mr. Corrigan: Yeah, that's right.
Mr. Mailliard: It's that kind of issue. It
seems like a Republican side tends to come down on
the side of frugality. Certainly we saw during the
Reagan administration, there was a big expansion.
Mr. Corrigan: Right, and unfortunately
spending is still continuing. Let's talk about the surpluses
that have come about as a result, primarily, of the
Baby Boom generation who are now achieving their maximum
earning potential. They're right now at the age where
they're starting to make as much money as they're going
to make in their life, which is fueling an economic
boom in this country. The result is more taxes, and
that's not going to go on forever, because at some point
the Baby Boom generation is going to retire, and they're
going to start taking money instead of providing money.
That's something we're concerned about. People of our
generation, and your generation, have to be concerned
with the fact that the government is spending our money.
Right now, they are. Right now there's $6 trillion in
debt, and if you count Social Security, you could probably
get as high as $12 trillion, depending on who's accountant
is doing the numbers. That's money that we're going
to have to come up with, and it's really not fair that
the current generation is spending money that we're
going to have to pay for. Ultimately you pile on all
the interest, and it's going to take a lot more money.
That's something we're concerned about.
Dov Rohan: Have you ever advised the Senator
to make a decision on a bill and then regretted that
choice?
Mr. Corrigan: Well, sometimes I've advised him to make a decision,
and then watched him go down and vote the other way.
In fact, that just happened the other day. Usually what
I'll do is present both sides to him, and then he'll
pretty much make up his own mind. Sometimes you'll make
a recommendation as to what you think is right. Maybe
he'll go down and decide that he's going to do the other
thing. Most of the time you decide that he was probably
right, and that's why he's the Senator.
Chris Sun: What has been your most difficult
decision so far as director of legislative policy?
Mr. Corrigan: Well,
let's see. Well I think one of the major decisions that
the Senator made, and that we were involved in advising
him, was leaving and then returning to the Republican
Party. He had some concerns with the way the party was
being run, and the fact that there was not an aggressive
advocacy for the conservative principles that it stands
for. Partly out of frustration and partly to see whether
there was some desire among the voters for an Independent
movement, he decided to become an Independent. He stayed
as a member of the Republican Caucus, but he didn't
put a little r next to his name anymore. That was a
decision that he made, and we all kind of worked it
out with him. Eventually he let it settle and went around
the country, meeting with people, and hearing what they
had to say. For the most part, people felt that they
agreed with the position, a lot of the points he was
making, and agreed with his concerns about the party
fighting for values and principles and morality and
all that. They also felt that it would be better if
he rejoined the Republican Party to take a leadership
role. Then he could work in trying to steer the party
back in the right direction in order to move forward
and strengthen what it was doing. So he wound up deciding
to go back to the party, but I think that was probably
one of the most major decisions in terms of its impact
and how hard it was to decide what to do.
Derrick Diaz: What type of things has he done
to steer it back?
Mr. Corrigan: Well, he's taken a very keen interest lately
on judicial nominees. The Senate, as you know, confirms
any judges, whether it's the Supreme Court, the Appeals
Court, which is the highest court besides the Supreme
Court, or the District Courts. The President nominates,
and then the Senate confirms. The President is obviously
a liberal Democrat, and the Senate is controlled by
a conservative Republican, so we have a little bit of
a stalemate. We want to obviously fill these judgeships,
and we want to get judges out there where they need
to be confirmed. However, Senator Smith is concerned
that the Republicans in the Senate have been too quick
to confirm many judges to lifetime appointments, who
are radical activist judges. He believes that judges
ought to interpret the Constitution. I'm sure you guys
have learned all about the various branches and what
their responsibilities are. I think his concern is that
what we call activist judges could take on a role that
really belongs to the Congress, where they create almost
legislative policy in their job as a judge. So he's
been trying to identify certain cases where the judges
are very clearly activist, and then bring the Senators
on the Republican side around and try to identify these
judges, and hopefully defeat them. We defeated one,
we've tried on a couple of others who we really felt
were activists, but it's very hard. The nomination process
is different than the legislative process, because instead
of a bill which is just a piece of paper, a nomination
is a person. I think this is a dynamic that would kind
of be interesting to people who are studying the political
process. Senators are very uncomfortable voting against
nominees, because they're people, this is their career,
and you're deciding whether or not to promote someone.
Normally people who get nominated for a federal position
are very competent people, and very accomplished. So
you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but
when they're lifetime appointments, Senator Smith believes
that we really need to be careful. So that's why
he's been trying to call attention to that. There are
a lot of other issues that he's been working on, but
that's the most recent one.
Alicia Weston-Miles: So how does the role
of partisanship affect your job, specifically, in
the recommendations you make to the Senator?
Mr. Corrigan: Generally it doesn't because
he's got a pretty solid foundation in terms of his philosophy.
I think working for a Senator who's got pretty solid
core beliefs, makes the job of recommending votes a
lot easier. I imagine that for the more moderate Senators,
whether they're Democrat or Republican, the job of the
legislative assistants in advising them on how to vote
is probably a little more difficult. You always have
to find out what does the Senator think about this,
or I'm not really sure what he thinks about that. We
encounter that a little bit, but for the most part,
usually when these bills come up, we already know how
he feels, or we can anticipate it based on other positions
he's taken. However, occasionally, there will be a vote
where we have some concerns about some issues in the
bill, but on the whole, it's okay, and the Leader is
saying we really need to get this through. Then we'll
work with the party in the conference committee, which
is between the Senate and the House. So we will stay
with the party, because you want to move the legislative
agenda forward. That's the more frequent case when partisanship
comes into play; on procedural votes. There was a
lot of that in the last couple of days. The Democrats
were trying to force votes on gun control, which we
don't support, and there were votes to try and move
legislation ahead. Right now there's a confrontational
situation in the Senate, where the Democrats feel that
their rights to offer amendments are being infringed,
and the Republicans believe that the Democrats are trying
to be dilatory, and just force votes on a lot of politically
motivated amendments that they can then use in the congressional
elections. Most of these amendments that they want to
vote on are not substantive legislation; they're just
what we call Sense of the Senate Amendments, but basically
they say we the Senate believe such and such. They don't
have any effect in law, but what they do is they allow
the Democrats to force a vote on something that they
can then talk about in the campaign. Those kind of votes
are probably the most partisan, because when you have
a procedural vote, the Republicans will generally vote
with the Majority Leader, and the Democrats will vote
with the Minority Leader. This is because the Republicans
want to protect our right to run the Senate, whereas
the Democrats want to protect their right to force votes
on amendments that they feel they have a right to vote
on.
Jesse Bazarnick: What are some of the most
important things that you've learned in your position?
Mr. Corrigan: Well, I think learning how the process works
became very important. You need to learn what the resources
are available to help you do your job like the Library
of Congress, and various resources that help you to
obtain the information that you need. At the same time
I've learned how to represent somebody else, which is
something that is important for a staff person. Fortunately,
I have a boss who pretty much agrees with the philosophy
I would espouse across the board, but you really have
to be aware that when you're down on the floor talking
and negotiating, that you're not the Senator, and that
you're representing somebody else. When you feel that
you've reached the limit to where your Member would
not support you, then you back off. That's something
that takes time to get comfortable with, but that's
probably one of the more important things I've learned.
Alicia Weston-Miles: Have you ever strongly
disagreed with the Senator, and if so, why?
Mr. Corrigan: I can't
really think of any times, and probably if I did, I
would be better off not saying it. I don't really recall
any times when I've really strongly disagreed with him
on anything. Which is an honest answer, but it probably
sounds like it's not. I think that I've been fortunate
in that I work for someone who shares my philosophy.
Aaron Jacobs-Smith: So drawing on your experiences
what's the most important advice you could give to
our generation?
Mr. Corrigan: Well drawing on my experiences, at least at
the outset, on thing is to get involved. When I was
in school I was not a political science major; I was
an art major. I got into politics by being involved
in student government, and working on this conservative
student newspaper that we had. It was really the extracurricular
stuff that got me my contacts and my real life experience.
Things like you're doing now go a long way to bring
you into the process, and if you're interested in a
political career, I would just say do whatever you can.
Get involved in campaigns for whatever side you support,
and get engaged because that's where you learn the process,
and make your contacts. Then if you're interested in
the Washington political process, get down here and
try to get an internship, and just get your foot in
the door. When I started I was probably not making enough
to live on, but I just wanted to get my foot in the
door, get some experience, and eventually, there was
a lot of turnover.
Alison Alderdice: What's the next step for
you?
Mr. Corrigan: I suppose anything's possible. I don't
have any real plans to run for office or anything
like that right now. It's exciting to have the opportunity
to work for Senator Smith, and to represent his philosophy,
and to hopefully try and achieve something while in
this job.
|
Bio
not yet written.