在众议院议长迈克·约翰逊（R-La.）宣布众议院提前进入大选前休会的第二天，民主党人猛烈抨击他主持了一个“什么都不做的国会”，几乎没有什么拿得出手政绩。作为反驳，议长声称目前的国会是该机构历史上第二高效的国会，也是过去80年来最有效率的国会。
The day after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) dismissed the House early for its pre-election recess, Democrats lambasted him for presiding over a “do nothing Congress” with little to show for itself. In rebuttal, the Speaker claimed the current House has been the second most productive in the history of the institution, and the most productive in the last 80 years.
这些说法存在一定争议。很大程度上取决于你如何定义立法效率。议长声称众议院已经通过了900多项立法，其中700项仍停留在参议院。并非所有立法都能成为法律。但截至8月31日，在众议院通过的732项可能成为法律的法案和联合决议中，只有111项真正成为法律。根据《华盛顿邮报》的分析，由民主党掌控的第115届国会（2017年至2018年）通过成法的法案最多，达到580项。而由共和党掌控的第118届国会（2023年至2024年）通过的最少，为274项。
Those claims are open to some dispute. Much depends on how you define legislative productivity. The Speaker claims that the House has passed over 900 pieces of legislation, 700 of which remain stuck in the Senate. Not all could become law. But as of Aug. 31, of the 732 House-passed bills and joint resolutions that could become law, only 111 had. According to a Washington Post analysis, the Democratic 115th Congress (2017 through 2018) passed the most bills into law at 580. The Republican 118th Congress (2023 through 2024), passed the fewest at 274.
在关于立法数字的唇枪舌剑之中，人们不禁要问，究竟是什么决定了一届国会的成功或失败。最重要的是，这些衡量标准将如何影响国家状况，甚至如何影响明年个别国会竞选的结果以及对两院的控制权？一些无党派团体认为，除了通过的法律数量外，国会的成功还应取决于关键立法的预算影响、它所产生的社会变革，以及它如何帮助议员们推进其政治议程。
With all the crossfire of legislative numbers, one can only wonder what really determines a Congress's success or failure. Most importantly, how do the metrics affect the state of the nation, or even influence the outcomes of individual congressional races and control of the two houses next year? Some non-partisan groups argue that, in addition to the number of laws passed, success of Congress should also be based on the budgetary impact of key legislation, the social change it produces, and how it enables members to advance their agendas.
对这些重大问题的简单回答是，这一切都取决于观察者的视角。对国会的看法是相对的，取决于你的政治和个人立场。更复杂的答案是，无论你在方程式中纳入多少变量，一届国会的成功或失败都是无法量化的。
The easy answer to these big questions is that it is all in the eye of the beholder. Perceptions of Congress are relative and depend on your political and personal perspectives. The more complex answer is that the success or failure of a Congress is not quantifiable, no matter how many variables you factor into your equation.
归根结底，无论是大选前的民意调查还是选举结果都无法解决这个问题。只有历史才能做出最终的裁决。
Ultimately, neither pre-election opinion polls nor election results will settle the question. Only history will make that final determination.
在《纽约时报》杂志上周日的专栏中，长期国会观察家兼记者罗伯特·德雷珀发表了一篇题为《国会是如何崩溃的》的文章，副标题是“两党议员内部爆料：美国的立法机构是如何陷入全面功能失调的”。基于公众对国会未能履行预定职能的普遍负面看法，以及对两党30位现任及前任议员和关键工作人员的采访，德雷珀得出结论：导致该第一分支衰落的主要因素，是其文化从立法转变为社交媒体上的好斗作风。
In last Sunday’s New York Times magazine, longtime Congress watcher and journalist Robert Draper published a piece, “How Congress Fell Apart,” and subtitled, “An Inside Account from Lawmakers of Both Parties About How America’s Legislative Branch Descended Into Total Dysfunction.”Based on overwhelming negative public perceptions that Congress is not doing its intended job and interviews with 30 current and former members from both parties and key staff, Draper concludes that the big factor in the decline is the transformation of the first branch from a culture of legislating to one of social media pugilism.
正如俄亥俄州共和党众议员戴夫·乔伊斯所说：“你现在看到的是，太多人把国会视为他们的绿幕”，“他们来这里是为了扬名立万，根本不在乎别的”。纽约州前民主党众议员肖恩·帕特里克·马洛尼指出，国会有两种商业模式：“一种商业模式是立法……另一种商业模式是当一个社交媒体网红。”加利福尼亚州民主党众议员茱莉亚·布朗利强调了这一点：“人们现在想要好斗的斗士……好斗的斗士而不是立法者——好斗者胜出。”
As Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) put it, “What you see now are too many people who come in viewing Congress as their green screen,” and “they’re going to make a name for themselves and don’t give a damn about anything else.”Former Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) observed that there are two business models in Congress: “One business model is legislating. … The other business model is being a social media influencer.”Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) underscored that point, “People now want scrappy fighters. ... The scrappy fighter as opposed to the legislator — scrappy wins.”
服务22年后即将退休的得克萨斯州共和党众议员迈克尔·麦考尔对此表示赞同。他说：“你当选不是为了和另一方融洽相处并为国家办成好事，你当选是为了战斗并干掉另一方。”具有讽刺意味的是，德雷珀的文章在最后几页展现了一丝希望，他记述了一项两党住房法案在经历大量反复磋商和妥协后如何通过了国会两院。
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who is retiring after 22 years, concurred. “You’re elected not to get along with the other side and get good things done for the country," he said. "You’re elected to fight and kill the other side.”Ironically, Draper’s piece shows a note of hope in its final pages in recounting how a bipartisan housing bill passed both chambers after much back and forth bargaining and compromises.
该法案最初得到了特朗普总统的支持，尽管他在最后阶段对其态度冷淡，转而优先推动其“拯救美国法案”的选举改革。尽管特朗普将住房法案贬低为“微不足道”，但他最终被约翰逊说服，没有对其进行否决。约翰逊告诉特朗普，该法案为共和党人提供了强有力的经济竞选讯息。
The legislation initially had President Trump’s support, though he cooled on it toward the end to prioritize his “SAVE America Act” election changes. Even though Trump downplayed the housing bills as “of minor importance,” he was finally persuaded by Johnson not to veto it. Johnson told Trump the bill gave Republicans a strong economic message to campaign on.
因此，在宪法规定的白宫十日搁置期结束后，《21世纪住房之路法案》在未经特朗普签署的情况下正式成为法律。如今，这种两党合作已鲜少听闻，但它表明国会议员们依然能够并确实在跨党派之间低调协作，为国家推动事务。尽管该法案可能难以获得公众的关注与赞誉，但对于这个鲜有其他政绩可夸耀的国会而言，它仍将被视为一项重要的成功举措。
So, after the Constitution’s requisite ten-day layover at the White House, the “The 21st Century Road to Housing Act,” became law without Trump’s signature. Such bipartisan cooperation is rarely heard of anymore, but it is a sign that members can and do still work quietly across the aisle to get things done for the country. It may get little attention and credit from the public but will still be counted as one significant measure of success for this Congress which has little else to tout.
唐·沃尔芬贝格是拥有28年国会工作经验的资深幕僚，曾担任众议院规则委员会幕僚长。他是《国会与人民：审议民主的考验》和《国会文化变迁：从公平竞争到权力博弈》的作者。
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee. He is author of "Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial" and "Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays."