In the House, the top of the hierarchy for the majority party is the Speaker of the House, who is J. Dennis Hastert, Republican from the 4th district of Illinois. He has been a quiet, yet conservative, leader of the House since his elevation in 1997. (Recall he was elected speaker at the height of the Clinton impeachment controversy. Newt Gingrich had stepped down as speaker and Bob Livingston, the heir apparent, dramatically bowed out when a past adultery episode was discovered.) Hastert is well loved but not known as a firebrand. That was an asset in 1997, but the "red meat" core of the Republican caucus has been aching for more aggressive leadership at the top.

Tom Delay, Republican from the 22nd district of Texas, was actually Hastert's mentor, but was passed over for the speakership in 1997 because he was deemed too aggressive and in-your-face. That didn't matter this time, however, when it came time to replace Dick Armey as majority leader, following his retirement. Delay's nickname is "the hammer." He is an exterminator by profession, which supporters and opponents frequently note. He is a skilled tactician and almost as far right as you can be.

The House majority leader is the "floor leader" of the majority party (currently Republicans), meaning that he is the chief legislative tactician for the party's program and the most visible spokesperson for the party and its program.

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from the 8th district of California, was recently elected House minority leader, replacing Dick Gephardt, who stepped down and will run for president. (Gephardt ran previously, in 1992, and distinguished himself by being a pro-life Democrat and pro-protective tariffs.) Pelosi was significantly to the left of Gephart, the other candidates to replace him, and the House Democratic caucus as a whole. (See Keith Poole's anaylsis of the House Democratic leadership race.) Her election has awakened hopes (among both liberal Democrats and Republicans of all stripes) that the House Democrats will be more aggressive against the House Republican leadership and the Bush administration.

The House minority leader is the floor leader of the minority party. Because the minority usually reacts to the plans of the majority, the minority leader is mostly known for articulating the position of the loyal opposition and for plotting ways to embarrass the majority.

In the Senate, the constitutional leader is the Vice President, Dick Cheney, but he has no effective powers, nor does the president pro tempore (now Ted Stevens, R-AK), who is chosen purely by seniority. The real leader of the chamber will be Bill Frist, Republican senator from Tennessee, who was recently elected Senate majority leader, replaying Trent Lott (R-MS), who embarrassed himself for lionizing Strom Thurmond's racist 1948 presidential campaign. (Keith Poole, a political scientist at the University of Houston, has a very interesting analysis of the relative racial voting records of Thurmond, Lott, and Frist.) Frist is much more of a racial moderate than either Thurmond or Lott, but he's just as conservative as Lott on social and economic issues—and probably foreign affairs, too. However, he's younger, more relaxed, more "new South," and (most important) George Bush's top ally in the Senate.

The Senate majority leader is not only the chief spokesperson for the majority party, but enjoys the "right of first recognition" on the Senate floor. He uses this traditional right to lead legislative scheduling. Because of the Senate's looser parliamentary rules (including, but not limited to, the filibuster), the Senate majority leader's influence is much less mighty than the House Speaker's or House majority leader's.

Tom Daschle, Democrat from South Dakota, is the House minority leader. Daschle just surprised everyone by announcing that he will not be running for president. Although he is from a conservative state, Daschle is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat who survives politically by being more pro-agriculture than the rest of the chamber. Daschle's cool, scholarly demeanor is probably one reason why the Republicans were eager to replace the uptight Lott with the equally cool and charming Frist.

Much like the minority leader in the House, the role of the Senate minority leader is to articulate the position of the opposition and to lead the effort to block the majority's plans. The Senate's rules make this easier than similar strategies in the House.

The committee system in Congress is what allows it to maintain its policymaking position via-a-vis the executive branch. (This is in contrast to the role of most parliaments, where the legislature is hamstrung due to its reliance on the ministries for information and policy leadership.) Committee membership is generally a career, and longevity of service is rewarded. Committees are well-staffed (roughly 2,000 staff members total) and well-funded (roughly $40m/year for committee operations.) By tradition, the most senior member of a committee from the majority party is the chair, but this has slipped significantly in the House, especially for the Republicans. House Republicans now have "term limits" for their chairs. Rather than seniority being the automatic road to the chair, it's only one of several considerations that go into the choice. (Currently, the most important considerations appear to be ideological purity and fundraising prowess.)

House committees are generally more important (in terms of expertise and policy leadership) than Senate committees. Two reasons for this. First, with roughly as many committee positions in both chambers to go around, the smaller Senate finds itself spreading its members thinly among the committees, whereas House members serve on few committees and speciality. Second, the rules of the House protect the work of House committees more than the rules of the Senate. Therefore, hard work by the staffs and members of House committees is more likely to bear fruit than committee work in the Senate.

An important exception is in foreign policy, where a number of factors conspire to place greater importance on the Senate committees. These factors include (1) the fact that both branches tend to defer to the executive branch on foreign affairs, therefore congressional committee work is just less important and (2) the constitutional role of the Senate in confirming ambassadors and ratifying treaties.

The House International Relations Committee is chaired by Henry Hyde, Republican from the 6th district of Illinois. Hyde is an example of a term-limited committee chair, having lost his coveted chair of the Judiciary Committee in 2001. (Remember, he presided over the Clinton impeachment hearings.) He is very socially conservative, having made his name through the "Hyde amendment," which bars federal funding of abortions. He inherited the chair of the International Relations Committee because of his seniority on that panel and the deep affection felt for him in his party. Foreign affairs is not his passion. He is, also, interestingly enough, not an aggressive "America firster," nor a knee-jerk isolationist. Though a loyal Republican and supporter of the Bush administration, he has joined with Democrats in casting skepticism toward some Republican administrations' more adventuresome plans. He is an interesting contrast with Tom Lantos, the Democrat from the 12th district of California, who is the ranking minority member. Lantos is the only holocaust survivor ever to serve in Congress and has been more supportive of aggressive foreign policy moves than most of his Democratic colleagues. Therefore, Hyde and Lantos, together, present a much more globally centrist committee leadership front than you see in most congressional committees these days

The committee is known for paying attention to the details of American foreign policy, laboring often out of the limelight (which is usually hogged by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). It is organized around regional subcommittees and is most known for pressing each administration hard on foreign aid issues. In the 107th Congress, it reported the resolution authorizing military force in Iraq. It has also spent a great deal of its legislative time on issues of African economic relief, the African AIDS/HIV crisis, and (not surprisingly) foreign policy toward the middle east.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is chaired by Billy Tauzin, a Republican (and former Democrat) from the third district of Louisiana. The ranking minority member is John Dingell, Democrat from the 16th district of Michigan. Both committee leaders represent the mainstreams of their parties on the domestic issues that their parties care about and tend toward the protectionist side in trade issues. In reporting on committee priorities for the 108th Congress, CQ.com reports nothing from this committee that touches on foreign policy.

The committee is known for having a jurisdiction that is as large as all outdoors. The committee is heavily involved in foreign affairs because of its responsibility for trade legislation. It tells you something about how trade legislation is considered when you realize that it is overseen by the Subommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.

The House Ways and Means Committee is chaired by Bill Thomas, Republican from the 21st district of California.; Charles Rangel, Democrat from the New York 15th district, is the ranking minority member.

Ways and Means shows up on a list of committees relevant in foreign policy because it has jurisdiction over tariffs, which are taxes after all. Over the years the House Energy and Commerce Committee has wrested away much of the influence that Ways and Means once had over international trade, as trade policy has moved away from tariff-setting. With concerns over the domestic economy, many on Ways and Means are happy with this, since it allows them to focus on things like tax cuts and unemployment benefits. However, one important matter for the 108th Congress will be dealing with threats from the EU to impose punitive tariffs over the issue of tax breaks for US exporters. This bill is controversial not for the issue itself, but because Thomas and the Republican majority have tried using it to extend tax benefits to U.S. companies that have operations overseas.

The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to be chaired by Duncan Hunter, Republican from the 52nd district of California (replacing Bob Stump from Arizona); the ranking minority member is Ike Skelton, Democrat from Missouri's 4th district. Hunter represents San Diego, the site of the U.S.'s largest naval presence, Skelton's district, in central Missouri, has a couple of huge army and air force bases.

As these remarks about the leadership suggest, the House Armed Service Committee has not generally been known as a fount of big-think policy, but rather, of protecting local military installations. In a sense, it is a classic constitutency committee. Skelton, the Democratic leader, is a bit of an exception. Although his district does have a significant military presence, he has pushed the Pentagon to be more forward-thinking and less parochial. One thing facing the committee this year is organizational: Traditionally, its subcommittees have been organized around constituency groups (service members [personnel], purchasing, and R&D). Hunter is likely to reorganize the committee, allowing weapons systems to be overseen from conception to purchase and deployment. If that happens, then the committee may have a chance to transform itself from a real estate and interest group/industry committee into a more sophisticated policy player.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be chaired by Richard Lugar, Republican from Indiana; Joseph Biden, Democrat from Delaware, will be the ranking minority member. (In the 107th Congress, Biden chaired.) Lugar chaired the committee in the 1980s, during the Reagan years, but was eventually bumped by Jesse Helms, who could claim the chair through seniority, and held that position for 16 years. Moving from Helms (who retired) to Lugar will represent a major change in Republican leadership on the committee. Lugar, a moderate Republican, went eye-to-eye with the Reagan administration on foreign policy many times, most notably over support for the Marcos regime, whom Lugar convinced Reagan to let fall. Lugar and Biden both agree on most significant policy areas, and are both seen as allies of Collin Powell.

As already mentioned, Foreign Relations is an exception to the rule that House committees usually matter more than Senate committees. Because Congress tends to defer to the president on foreign policy any way, it's the Senate committee's more visible position, plus constitutional role, that makes it a more important foreign policy setter than the House. That said, what is interestering, if we compare the two foreign policy committees in the two chambers, is that they are both led by moderates of the two parties who often disagree with the extremists of their parties and work together within the committees. These are the committees that will need to be convinced that further, more aggressive action, against Iraq (or Korea) is necessary before the administration goes forward. Although you should expect administration wishes to eventually be granted, as with the first round of administration posturing over Iraq, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should serve as an important moderating force in the coming months.

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will be chaired by John McCain, Republican of Arizona; the ranking minority member will be Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina. Both are iconoclastic former presidential candidates, though McCain is the better known these days. McCain is known to be dedicated to principles (detractors call him self righteous) on certain issues, notably campaign finance reform. This "clean streak" (don't forget his involvement with the "Keating 5," however!) leads many people to believe he's a liberal Republican, almost Democrat, but don't let one issue fool you. McCain is a conservative Republican, especially on social and economic issues. In the case of international relations, however, McCain is on the internationalist side of his party, and therefore is less likely to be protectionist and more likely to support "liberal" foreign policy initiatives, especially foreign aid.

The Senate Finance Committee will be chaired by Charles Grassley, Republican from Iowa; Max Baucus, Demorat from Montana, will be ranking minority member. (This is a pure switch from the 107th Congress.) Both are midwesterners with a populist streak. Grassley is more of a traditional Republican fiscal conservative than the rest of his party, and therefore expect him to challenge the administration on current tax cut ideas.

The Senate Finance Committee is the analogous committee to House Ways and Means. Under the constitution, tax bills must originate in the House, and the constitution is almost always (but not literally always) followed. Therefore, Finance goes second in most cases, having less of a role in the same policy areas that Ways and Means plays in.

The Senate Armed Service Committee will be chaired by John Warner, Republican from Virginia; Carl Levin, Democrat from Michigan, will be the ranking minority member. (This is another simple swap from the 107th Congress.) Both Warner and Levin work well together and have reputations as enormously thougtful and informed thinkers about military policy. Warner is not reluctant to take on administrations and Pentagons—a fact that has drawn not only ire from those quarters, but from Virginia Republicans, who have tried to oust him in the past.

Contrasted with the House Armed Services Committee, Senate Armed Services has developed a reputation as being less interested (though not toally disinterested) in making interest groups and industries happy and more interested in strategic thinking about the future of the American military. Unlike most committees, Senate Armed Services has traditionally maintained a single, non-partisan staff. Along with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Armed Services will serve as a brake on the current administration.