ICYMI: Top Reads on Congress

Ella Nilsen, “Nancy Pelosi just suggested she sees herself as a “transitional” House speaker,” Vox:

“Pelosi made it clear she still intends to run for speaker if Democrats win in her interview with Barabak. But floating the idea that it’s a short-term thing may make Pelosi’s speakership bid more palatable to House Democrats who are skeptical about her remaining at the top.”

Mike DeBonis and John Wagner, “‘There has to be a transition at some point,’ Pelosi says about Democratic leadership,” Washington Post:

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California walked a fine line Monday when asked about her future as the leader of House Democrats, refusing to put an expiration date on her tenure just days after calling herself a “transitional figure” who might hand over power after a short second stint as speaker.”

Melanie Zanona and Mike Lillis, “Dems divided over Pelosi’s ‘transitional’ Speaker pitch,” The Hill:

“The idea of a “transitional” Speaker, a term the 78-year-old California Democrat has floated in recent days, appears designed to win over younger lawmakers who are clamoring for generational change in the leadership ranks but have yet to line up a credible challenger.”

Patricia Murphy, “Speaker Pelosi? Maybe. Tea Party Redux? Not if She Can Help It,” Roll Call:

“Luckily for Pelosi, there are multiple reasons to think she will avoid Boehner’s daily fate of trying to corral his wheelbarrow full of frogs — as he called his unwieldy caucus. Between the number of new members she’s likely to have (far fewer), their proximity to the middle of the road (they’ll be closer), and the number of would-be replacements gunning for her job (stand up if you’re out there!), the first woman who could be speaker twice will have lots of challenges, but a tea party rebellion redux in the House probably won’t be one of them.”

Jason Pye and Sarah Anderson, “Want to Fix the Senate? Repeal the 17th Amendment,” Real Clear Policy:

“If anything, if it wishes to correct misrepresentation in the federal government, Congress should work to repeal the 17th Amendment, not threaten the Great Compromise so carefully crafted by our Founding Fathers.”

Paul Kane, “Talkin’ about massive turnover no matter who wins the House,” Washington Post:

“The House is undergoing one of the most significant shake-ups in power since the Republican revolution of 1994, no matter who wins the majority in next month’s midterm elections.”

Eric Felten, “How the Midterms Will Affect Congress’s Investigations,” Weekly Standard:

“What happens if Adam Schiff becomes chairman of House Intelligence, Elijah Cummings takes Oversight, and Jerrold Nadler helms the House Judiciary Committee? “Schiff is vowing to investigate Trump for money laundering if the House flips. Cummings says he’ll go after Trump for corruption, and Nadler says he’ll pursue campaign finance violations,” says a Republican aide involved in the Russia investigation. “Under Democrat control, it’s crystal clear that every House committee will open permanent investigations to find a pretext to impeach the president.”

Seung Min Kim, “House Democrats consider how they would balance investigating and cooperating with Trump,” Washington Post:

“While Democrats are preparing to wage war against President Trump if they win control of the House next year, both sides have also begun to look for areas where they could cooperate, eager to show voters they can deliver results even in a divided government.”

Brian Alexander, “Why we should expect to see more rule-breaking in Congress from now on,” LSE:

“Though acts of procedural disobedience can provide substantial benefits to participants and are rarely punished, they do not happen often. The infrequency of procedural disobedience is evidence for the enduring power of norms in how Congress operates. Members often adhere to the rules out of respect for norms, even though norm violations can produce partisan benefits and, as the gun sit-in illustrates, are rarely strongly punished.  However, norms can change, and we may ask whether, in the present times heightened political conflict, an increase in acts of procedural disobedience will result.”

Paul M. Krawzak, “Budget Overhaul Proposals Likely to Stay in Play After Nov. 30,” Roll Call:

“The legislative proposals under development by the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform could enjoy a life of their own after the special panel’s work is done later this year.”

Niels Lesniewski, “Anti-Pork Senators Warn of Potential Return of Earmarks,” Roll Call:

“A bipartisan group of senators critical of pork-barrel spending is again warning about the possible return of congressional earmarks.”

Stuart M. Butler and Timothy Higashi, “Redesigning the budget process: A role for independent commissions?” Brookings:

“The experience of using a Select Committee for this round of budget process reforms suggests that achieving more significant budget process reform in the future will also require the assistance of a special body—but one that is separated from the day-to-day pressures of Congress and the short-term incentives for lawmakers.”

Ella Nilsen, “The Congressional Black Caucus has been an important Pelosi ally. But they’re getting impatient,” Vox:

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s bid for speaker has one potential problem if Democrats take back the House: a Congressional Black Caucus that wants one of their own to be speaker— or at the very least, to get the No. 2 position.”

Matt Glassman, “Matt’s Five Points, October 24: Not Your Father’s Divided Government,” MattGlassman.com:

“Forecasts of the 2018 election indicate the 116th Congress will probably result in Democrats controlling the House and the GOP controlling the Senate, so let’s talk about divided government.”

Griffin Connolly, “No One — Not Even Republicans — Likes Congress,” Roll Call:

Remember, the GOP has a majority in both chambers of Congress, so you might reasonably expect at least a chunk of conservative Americans to look favorably on their elected leaders. But even among the 370 Republicans surveyed via web-based interviewing from Oct. 21 through Oct. 23, just 31 percent approved of “the way that the United States Congress is handling its job.”

Eric Posner, “The Far-Reaching Threats of a Conservative Court,” New York Times:

“Congress itself lacked the capacity to engage in the detailed regulation that is necessary to keep a modern economy humming while protecting workers and consumers. Agencies were needed. The executive branch was the sensible place to house agencies because the agencies combined both policymaking and enforcement functions. And agencies need some protection from political meddling.”

David French, “The Administrative State Is a Threat to the Constitutional Order,” National Review:

“ Perhaps — just perhaps — there are enduring reasons for the separation of powers. Perhaps concentrating legislative power in Congress — the branch of government closest to the people — helps protect liberty and ensure democratic accountability.”