This chapter reveals that the poor do not receive the same dyadic representation that other constituents typically do, and that one might expect. Here the focus shifts from aggregate congressional activity to the behavior of individual members of the U.S. House. Although overall congressional activity may be low, members who represent sizeable numbers of poor constituents should be advocates on poverty issues, since legislators generally are responsive to their constituents, especially when they are a large part of the district. However, across multiple analyses of bills sponsored and votes cast there is little evidence that this is the case. Increasing levels of poverty in the district do not translate into more legislative activity, aside from a few legislators from extremely poor districts. The silver lining, however, is that a few “surrogate” lawmakers appear to advocate for poverty-related issues even though they have few poor constituents in their districts.