There is something both fresh and frustrating about the Congressional election season.

The freshness comes from new faces, both young and experienced, who inject the political dialogue with a new insight and message. They call for reform and tout their optimism about 2007.

The frustration comes from pessimism that January will bring politics as usual, no matter the cast of characters. The politicians elected this November will likely win with a significant plurality, if not a sizable majority. But after flying to Washington and swearing their oaths, the collective unpopularity of Congress will overshadow the individual popularity of its members. It seems counterintuitive, so the question is, what's so bad about Congress?

Part of the answer may be that the media likes to focus on conflict. Luckily for them, there is no shortage of that in the deliberative bodies of our government. Most of the legislation Congress handles is of a national nature. Because the regions of the United States are so different in their populations, resources and perspectives, it's no surprise that members of Congress have problems settling on one version of a bill.

Moreover, discussion of the smaller victories that members of Congress have throughout each session is typically absent. Smaller news bureaus depend on The Associated Press and the large metropolitan dailies to provide most of their Washington coverage, so people assume the partisanship and stalemates described in stories about heavily contested bills are a constant characteristic of the Congressional environment. Voters can see the positive effects of legislation when it returns to their home state in the form of education, highways or tax breaks. But they may not connect those benefits to the work of the brawling Congress members they see on TV or read about in the paper.

Because the status quo does not benefit voters or elected officials, it would be nice to cure this curse of misperception. The best way to do so is for Congress to actually make that fresh start that its members are trumpeting in the weekend before the election. By identifying an issue of national importance that is not culturally divisive but is engaging for folks at home, members of Congress would be well on their way. And to find such an issue, all Congress needs to do is look around.

They can start by looking internationally, where the issue of global warming is ripe for the picking. Just this Monday, AP reported on a speech given by Tony Blair that revealed the startling cost of global warming, should it continue at its present rate. In addition to displacing more than 200 million people, the rising sea levels, droughts and floods resulting from changes in global temperature will cost the world 5 to 20 percent of its gross domestic product. Impending crisis should be a sufficient reason for members of Congress to act, but if not that, they can consider it their representative duty.

In states, cities and small towns across America, communities are pledging to fight global warming in their immediate surroundings. Just last night, Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, lectured at the Memorial Union about the importance and economic benefit of fighting global warming. But people in Wisconsin aren't just seeking information — they want solutions, too.

And that's probably why the Wisconsin State Journal mentioned that energy companies in Madison are offering customers an energy package where they receive up to 70 percent of their energy from alternative sources for a small additional cost. Similarly, the University of Wisconsin has created a grass roots campaign called "We Conserve," which provides conservation goals, strategies and tips.

It seems that citizens have accepted the threat but are ignoring the responsibility. Congress needs to provide leadership, coordination and knowledge on this subject as well as a broad commitment to solutions. Only then can we make the United States a more responsible global citizen.

The movement to halt global warming is currently happening beyond and below members of Congress. But should they decide to take the threat and their leadership role in halting it seriously, they will be rewarded with healthier economies, climates and poll numbers. Maybe then they will break the cycle of voter disappointment and their optimistic visions can become more than a campaign tool.

Sarah Howard ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.