ICYMI: Top reads on Congress

G. William Hoagland, “The shutdown horror show was bad, but beware the reruns,” Roll Call:

“The latest shutdown has been a lesson in how each side needs something to claim victory. But that has always been the backbone of a successful negotiation, and in this instance, both congressional leaders have spent plenty of time in their careers around a negotiating table to know that. In other words, they know better.”

Carl Hulse, “After a Shutdown Test of Wills Comes a Test of Governance,” New York Times:

“Negotiations over border funding, which will have only a couple of weeks to bear fruit before another potential shutdown looms, are the first real experiment in how divided government will or won’t work for the next two years.”

Mark Strand and Tim Lang, “Here’s Some Reform Ideas To Prevent Government Shutdowns. You Won’t Believe What Happens Next (Spoiler: Effective Legislating by Congress),” Congressional Institute:

“While Congress debates immigration and border security policy until the temporary appropriation expires, they should also look at ways to prevent shutdowns from happening. They can start with fixing the budget process so that the country, federal employees and others are not held hostage to partisan policy disputes.”

Li Zhou, “The debate around putting an end to all government shutdowns, explained,” Vox:

“Three such bills have been floated in the Senate, along with two others in the House, and while each of them would address the issue slightly differently, several would “automatically” maintain funding for the government if lawmakers are unable to reach an agreement on spending bills. By doing so, such measures would ensure that the government stays open — and federal workers keep getting paid — even if Congress doesn’t secure a spending deal by the necessary deadline.”

Eliza Newlin Carney, “House Democrats Want to Reorganize Congress. They Shouldn’t Stop Halfway.” The American Prospect:

“But Democrats’ efforts to improve Congress as an institution, making the House more efficient, productive, transparent, and accountable, could prove as important in their own way as their more ambitious anti-corruption package. These House rules changes look more timely than ever in the wake of the recent shutdown, which has left lawmakers eager to find some way—any way—to escape their predictable and never-ending cycle of budget brinkmanship.”

Jonah Goldberg, “With Few Incentives for Compromise, Political Dysfunction Will Continue,” National Review:

“For a century now, Congress has been abdicating its constitutional responsibilities, outsourcing decisions and powers to the executive branch and the courts. The reasons for this are complex, but the most relevant one is that it’s usually in the short-term political interest of both parties to toss hot potatoes elsewhere. And I think that’s what’s going to happen next.”

Margaret Taylor, “Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches,” Lawfare:

“The following is an overview of congressional requests for executive branch information and executive privilege assertions in response; it does not cover, for example, requests by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the law and dynamics of which are quite different. Lawfare has published a number of articles that address the issue of executive privilege generally.”

Stephanie Akin, “Democratic leaders called out for secrecy surrounding internal party rules,” Roll Call:

“House Democratic leaders are under pressure to publish their internal party rules — a deceptively dry set of policies that can determine how power is distributed among members, how the party responds to scandal, and what issues the party will prioritize on the chamber floor.”

Sahil Chinoy and Jessia Ma, “How Every Member Got to Congress,” New York Times:

“Here, we’ve traced the pre-congressional career of every House member in the 116th Congress, showing the narrow but well-trodden paths through prestigious schools, lucrative jobs and local political offices that led the latest crop of legislators to Capitol Hill.”

Lindsey McPherson, “What’s in a position? This is how caucuses show their strength,” Roll Call:

“The New Democrat Coalition has amended its bylaws to make it easier for the group of centrist Democrats to take official positions on policy ideas or legislation — a tool used by congressional caucuses to show their strength as they try to line up support behind specific policy ideas or legislation.”

Conor Friedersdorf, “The Senator Who Is Betraying the Senate,” The Atlantic:

“The comment allies Graham with some immigration hard-liners in the Republican Party and is perhaps intended to avert another pointless government shutdown. But it marks a betrayal of Congress.”

Julia Azari, “The Fight Over The State Of The Union Was About The Future Of Democracy,” FiveThirtyEight:

“But this year is different. Pelosi’s decision to rescind her invitation² has highlighted Congress’s role in the process and reaffirmed its status as a coequal branch of government. And perhaps it has also drawn attention to the idea that while the State of the Union, and the government in general, have become heavily focused on the presidency, it doesn’t have to be that way.”

Don Wolfensberger, “State of the Union address needs rethinking,” The Hill:

“Meantime, the originally intended recipients of the presidents’ messages, House and Senate members, suffered the increasingly diminished status as backdrop bystanders –attentive, respectful, immobile and mute –until cued to respond at the “pause-for-applause lines.””

Paul McCleod, “Democrats Will Look At Banning Members From Sleeping In Their Offices,” Buzzfeed:

“Some see it as a proud tradition, some see it as inappropriate and gross. Either way, members of Congress sleeping in their offices may soon come to an end. The Committee on House Administration will publicly study the issue, said chair Zoe Lofgren. It’s not the committee’s first priority, but “there’ll be a public process,” Lofgren said.”

Alex Gangitano, “Lobbyists feel crunch in post-shutdown session,” The Hill:

“Lobbyists are bracing their clients for a short legislative calendar, worrying there is little time to tackle their top priorities after a record-long government shutdown, with new deadlines ahead and the 2020 election quickly approaching.”

Emily Kopp, “BLAKE Act targets future Blake Farentholds,” Roll Call:

“The BLAKE Act, or the Bad Lawmakers Accountability and Key Emends Act, would bar any former member of Congress from behaving like Farenthold. Specifically, the legislation would prevent any member of Congress from cashing in on his time in office with a plum lobbying job if that member had used tax dollars to settle a sexual harassment claim and had not reimbursed federal coffers.”

James O’Malley, “Who Congress Follows On Twitter — Exposed!” Huffington Post:

“We’ve compiled an enormous data set that shows who people in both chambers of Congress are following on Twitter. The results point to a significant partisan divide and give a glimpse into the wildly different places where Democrats and Republicans get their information.”