Decline of Elite-Educated Republican Lawmakers

Many posts have discussed the politics of colleges and universities in the United States.

Volden C, Wai J, Wiseman AE. On the Decline of Elite-Educated Republicans in Congress. Perspectives on Politics. 2026;24(1):256-268. doi:10.1017/S1537592725102260

We identify a rise in educational polarization among members of the US Congress mirroring the educational polarization in the American mass public. Over the past half-century, the percentage of Republican representatives who attended elite educational institutions declined from 40% to 15%, and the percentage of similarly educated Republican senators declined from 55% to 35%, while the ranks of elite-educated Democrats rose in both chambers. These changes across the parties have mapped into observable differences in behavior and approaches toward lawmaking. We find that elite-educated legislators are much more liberal in their voting patterns, suggesting a link between the decline in elite-educated Republicans and ideological polarization in Congress. We also demonstrate that, in the House, elite-educated Democrats are especially effective lawmakers, but not so for elite-educated Republicans. In the Senate, we establish a link between the decline of elite-educated Republicans and the rise of partisan warrior “Gingrich Senators.” Overall, these patterns offer initial glimpses into how political elites are being drawn from different educational cohorts, representing an important transition in American governance.

 

 

Free Speech and Retired Military Members

At Davos a few weeks ago, Trump said: Usually they say, 'He's a horrible dictator-type person,' I'm a dictator. But sometimes you need a dictator

Previous posts have discussed authoritarian moves by the executive branch.

Judge Richard J. Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia:

United States Senator Mark Kelly, a retired naval officer, has been censured by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for voicing certain opinions on military actions and policy. In addition, he has been subjected to proceedings to possibly reduce his retirement rank and pay and threatened with criminal prosecution if he continues to speak out on these issues. Secretary Hegseth relies on the well-established doctrine that military servicemembers enjoy less vigorous First Amendment protections given the fundamental obligation for obedience and discipline in the armed forces. Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!

 Worse still, Secretary Hegseth contends that this Court is not yet competent to decide the issues in this case. He and his fellow Defendants argue that military personnel decisions are exempt from judicial review and, in any event, that Senator Kelly should first be required to go through the military appeals process so the military can have the first crack at adjudicating his First Amendment rights. I disagree. This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees. After all, as Bob Constitution demands they receive it! I. Dylan famously said, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."1 To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it! 

Senator Kelly's First Amendment claim is not only justiciable; he is likely to succeed on the merits. He has also shown irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities fall decidedly in his favor. As such, his motion for a preliminary injunction on his First Amendment claim is hereby GRANTED.

Trump II, First Year

Many posts have discussed the presidency.

 Ballotpedia:

Earlier this week marked the one year anniversary since Donald Trump (R) assumed office as the 47th president of the United States, making him one of only two U.S. presidents to serve two non-consecutive terms. Here’s a look at the first year of his second term, by the numbers, though Jan. 16.

Executive actions

Trump issued 229 executive orders, 57 presidential memoranda, and 118 proclamations in the first year of his second term. Trump’s executive order total was the highest first-year executive order total since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D), who issued 568 executive orders in 1933.

Federal judges

Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed 27 Article III federal judges, including 21 to U.S. District Courts and six to the U.S. Courts of Appeals. During the first year of his first term, Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed 23 Article III judges, including one Supreme Court Justice, 12 to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and 10 to the U.S. District Courts.

Supreme Court emergency applications

The Trump administration filed 32 emergency applications with the Supreme Court. An emergency application asks the Court for immediate intervention in a case that has not fully progressed through the ordinary procedures required for the Court to issue a regular opinion. The Court granted the Trump administration’s request for intervention in 21 cases.

Presidential pardons

Trump issued 181 presidential pardons and commutations, not including instances of mass pardons. According to the Department of Justice, during fiscal year 2017, Trump issued one pardon and no commutations. Joe Biden (D), Barack Obama (D), and George W. Bush (R) issued no pardons or commutations during their first fiscal year in office.

Tie-breaking votes in the Senate

Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the vice president also serves as the president of the Senate and may cast the deciding vote when there is a tie in the Senate. Vice President J.D. Vance (R) cast seven tie-breaking votes in the Senate.

Trump and the GAO

 Previous posts have discussed the congressional lobotomy including  the shrinkage of GAO.

Trump wants to replace the head of the Government Accountability Office.  Not so fast, writes Kevin R. Kosar at The Washington Examiner:

Republican senators have been willing to deep-six Trump appointees, particularly to low-profile positions. Trump has withdrawn a record high of 48 nominations this year. In recent weeks, they have forced the withdrawal of nominees to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Export-Import Bank, and the Office of Special Counsel. They also appear to be rejecting Trump’s proposed ambassador to Kuwait.

Many, if not most, senators value GAO’s work. Unlike, say, communications from lobbyists, interest groups, and their political parties, GAO reports and opinions are factually-based. The agency does not get more money or rewards from helping a legislator understand why fraudsters can rip off the federal SNAP food program. GAO’s value would be greatly diminished if senators approved a new comptroller general who viewed himself as the president’s advocate and defender.

Nor does it appear likely that Trump could circumvent the Senate and install an acting head of GAO. The law empowers the GAO deputy director to take over the top position when Dodaro’s term ends, and it requires Congress to form a commission headed by the majority and minority leaders of both chambers to propose potential nominees for the president’s consideration.

And not to be forgotten is that Congress rebuffed Trump the last time he attempted this maneuver. This spring, his acting appointees were turned away from the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, with the support of both Senate and House GOP leaders.

Brief Against Tariffs

Many posts have dealt with tariffs and trade.

Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Ron Wyden, together with colleagues, filed an amicus brief against Trump tariffs: 

The Federal Circuit, Court of International Trade, and District Court for the District of Columbia all reached the same correct conclusion: the President’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA is unlawful. 

Only Congress has the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1 and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” id., cl. 3. This reflects the Framers’ intent for the most democratically accountable branch—the one closest to the People—to be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs. Hamilton, Federalist Nos. 31–36, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation (Jan. 1788)

Congress enacted IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1710, to provide the President with the power to impose sanctions, export controls, and similar measures. It provides the President with defined powers to address national emergencies but does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.

Neither the word “duties” nor the word “tariffs” appears anywhere in IEEPA. Rather, IEEPA allows the President, in times of a declared emergency, to “regulate … importation or exportation” of property. 50 U.S.C.  § 1702(a)(1)(B). IEEPA’s delegated power to “regulate” is not a power to impose tariffs.

IEEPA contains none of the hallmarks of legislation delegating tariff power to the executive, such as limitations tied to specific products or countries, caps on the amount of tariff increases, procedural safeguards, public input, collaboration with Congress, or time limitations. In the five decades since IEEPA’s enactment, no President from either party, until now, has ever invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs.

The Administration’s interpretation of IEEPA would effectively nullify the guardrails set forth in every statute in which Congress expressly granted the President limited tariff authority—a result Congress did not intend.

Contrary to the views expressed by the Administration and the Federal Circuit dissent, IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs as “bargaining chips.” While this Court has held that Presidents may use IEEPA to freeze foreign assets and to then use those frozen assets as leverage in foreign affairs negotiations, Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 673 (1981), IEEPA does not grant the President the power to impose tariffs on American citizens importing goods to generate leverage in trade talks. Nor may the President use IEEPA to override America’s trade statutes, which Congress has carefully considered and enacted over the years. The President “is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1, 21 (2015)

This Court should hold that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President and the President’s tariffs under IEEPA are therefore unlawful.

The Pope Comments on US Politics

Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.   

 Valentina di Donato , Madalaine Elhabbal, Catholic News Agency:

Pope Leo XIV responded to controversy over the Chicago cardinal’s plans to honor a Catholic U.S. senator who supports legalized abortion, saying that the senator’s record should be considered in its totality and that Americans should search together for the truth on ethical issues.

Several U.S. bishops condemned Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich’s plans to honor U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, with a “lifetime achievement award” for his work surrounding immigration policy despite his pro-abortion voting record.

“I am not terribly familiar with the particular case. I think it’s important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, in 40 years of service in the United States Senate,” the pope told reporters on Tuesday in response to a question from EWTN News.

He said: “I understand the difficulty and the tensions. But I think as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the Church.”

“Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life,” the pope explained. “Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro life.”

“So they are very complex issues and I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them,” he continued, “but I would ask first and foremost that they would have respect for one another and that we search together both as human beings and in that case as American citizens and citizens of the state of Illinois, as well as Catholics, to say that we need to be close to all of these ethical issues. And to find the way forward as a Church. The Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear.”

The number of U.S. bishops who have condemned Cupich’s decision to honor Durbin with a “lifetime achievement award” has risen to 10, including two bishops emeritus.

Lobbyists and the Senate Parliamentarian

Many posts have discussed lobbying.

Taylor Giorno at NOTUS:

The time during which a reconciliation bill is with the Senate parliamentarian would be a prime opportunity for lobbyists to get provisions tweaked or washed out.

Except the industry built on access has little influence with her: Elizabeth MacDonough is one of the rare players on Capitol Hill that refuses to meet with lobbyists.

“Cursing them. Yes. Lobbying them. No,” one Republican lobbyist texted NOTUS of the parliamentarian.

MacDonough is “effectively one of the most powerful women in the free world,” a Democratic lobbyist told NOTUS. Senate committees have been working for weeks with the parliamentarian on several facets of the Republican mega-bill, and they’ve already had to rework parts of the bill that the parliamentarian rejected.

While lobbyists can’t directly lobby the parliamentarian, several said they are trying to backchannel their demands through the process. Their targets include Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a tax on profits from third-party litigation funding and a 10-year moratorium on new state artificial intelligence regulations.

“A large part of the role we play is helping educate the staff and give them the ammunition to make the best arguments to their boss, for the parliamentarian,” Rich Gold, a Holland & Knight partner and leader of the firm’s public policy and regulation group, told NOTUS.

If a client is concerned about a provision in the bill, lobbyists could draft a Byrd memo to bring to senate staffers or provide them with “whatever supplementary information I think would be helpful in making the argument to knock a provision out of the bill,” the Democratic lobbyist said.

“A lobbyist like myself, we insert ourselves into the process by supplying evidence and arguments and detail to the minority, if they wish to use it, for including in their memo and their arguments to the parl,” they added.

...

“If you’re asking me, ‘Can you bamboozle Elizabeth?’ The answer is no,” said Jim Manley, who spent more than two decades working in the Senate, including a stint with the late Democratic leader, Harry Reid.

“There’s no lobbyists sitting there manipulating the process,” Manley added, although he noted lobbyists “serve increasingly as a research arm for staffers on Capitol Hill.”

 

Booker's Marathon Speech

Victor Feldman at Roll Call:

New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker on Tuesday evening broke the record for the longest floor speech in the Senate’s history with a marathon speech taking aim at the Trump administration’s policies and efforts to downsize the federal government.

Booker continued speaking after surpassing the 24-hour-and-18 minute record set in 1957 by South Carolina Democrat Strom Thurmond. Booker yielded the floor after holding it for 25 hours and four minutes, according to the Senate Periodical Gallery.

The senior senator for New Jersey acknowledged the moment as Democrats on the floor cheered.

“The man who tried to stop the rights upon which I stand … I’m not here though because of his speech, I’m here despite his speech,” Booker said of Thurmond, the Dixiecrat-turned-Republican and foe of the Civil Rights Act.

Channeling the spirit of the late Georgia Democratic House member and civil rights activist John Lewis, Booker had held the Senate floor since Monday night in what he called an effort to stir up “good trouble.”

“I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able,” Booker said in his familiar booming voice Monday evening. “I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our nation is in crisis.”

 

Immigrants and Congress

 Janakee Chavda at Pew:

Immigrants and children of immigrants make up at least 15% of the current U.S. Congress, according to a Pew Research Center analysis. This share has not changed from the last Congress, making it the first time in the past four Congresses that there has not been an increase in the share or number of immigrants and children of immigrants.

In total, at least 80 lawmakers are foreign born or have at least one parent who was born in another country, including 61 in the House and 19 in the Senate. Our count uses voting members’ biographical information from the Congressional Research Service, news articles, congressional offices and other sources as of Jan. 3, 2025, the first day of the new Congress.

Threats Against Members of Congress

Many posts have discussed political violence..

 Gabriel Sherman at Vanity Fair:

According to one source with direct knowledge of the events, North Carolina senator Thom Tillis told people that the FBI warned him about “credible death threats” when he was considering voting against Pete Hegseth’s nomination for defense secretary. Tillis ultimately provided the crucial 50th vote to confirm the former Fox & Friends host to lead the Pentagon. According to the source, Tillis has said that if people want to understand Trump, they should read the 2006 book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. (When asked for comment for this story, a spokesperson for Tillis said it was false that the senator had recommended the book in that capacity. The FBI said it had no comment.)

US Capitol Police:

The number of United States Capitol Police (USCP) threat assessment cases has climbed for the second year in a row. In 2024, the USCP’s Threat Assessment Section (TAS) investigated 9,474 concerning statements and direct threats against the Members of Congress, including their families and staff. The number of concerning statements and direct threats usually increases during election years.pol 

Here are the TAS case numbers for the last five years:

• 8,008 in 2023
• 7,501 in 2022
• 9,625 in 2021
• 8,613 in 2020
• 6,955 in 2019
• 5,206 in 2018
• 3,939 in 2017

 

Diverse Congress

Many posts have discussed the state of Congress.

Katherine Schaeffer at Pew:

Just over a quarter (26%) of voting members in the U.S. Congress identify as a race or ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, making the 119th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse to date. In continuation of a long-running trend, this is the eighth Congress to break the record set by the one before it. 

Religion in the 119th Congress

Many posts have discussed the state of Congress.

Jeff Diamant at Pew:

When the U.S. Congress convenes for its 119th session on Jan. 3, it will have marginally fewer Christians than it did in the previous session (2023-25), continuing a gradual, 10-year decline. Christians will make up 87% of voting members in the Senate and House of Representatives, combined, in the 2025-27 congressional session. That’s down from 88% in the last session and 92% a decade ago.

More on Recess Appointments

Previous posts have discussed recess appointments.

Kacper Surdy, known on social media as Ringwiss, at The Bulwark:

Trump’s stated reason for wishing to make recess appointments is that it would take too long for the Senate to confirm the nominations he makes. But that is not a serious concern. Thanks to changes in procedure made by the Senate over time, it is now easier than ever to overcome filibusters, whether actual or merely threatened, on nominations. In Trump’s first term, the Senate confirmed his major cabinet nominations within just a few weeks of his inauguration.

That leaves us with two reasons for which a president might wish to make recess appointments to the cabinet: either (1) to avoid subjecting the nominee to the Senate’s scrutiny, or (2) because the nomination does not have the support of a majority of the Senate.

Under these circumstances, Congress would not be voting for just an ordinary adjournment. Since Trump has overtly declared his wish to make recess appointments, lawmakers now know that a vote to allow the Senate to adjourn for ten days or more would be tantamount to a vote to allow him to make those appointments. If a senator is opposed to one of the nominations that Trump has preannounced, then it’s doubtful that he or she would go along with any proposal to facilitate recess appointments for those nominees.

In fact, we got a potential indication of this last week, when Matt Gaetz withdrew as Trump’s prospective nominee for attorney general, apparently because he was unlikely to be confirmed by the Senate. Rather than push for a recess to appoint Gaetz, Trump merely moved on to his next AG nominee.

In the end, Trump likely concluded that he would have had the same outcome if he forced the Senate to vote on Gaetz or pushed congressional Republicans to adjourn. A defeat was inevitable. It seems likely that Trump and his team will make the same calculations for controversial nominees going forward, too. Absent the pursuit of uncharted legal theories, if four Republican senators and all senators caucusing with the Democrats want a nominee defeated, then that nominee will likely end up defeated.

---

Confirmation Delays and Recess Appointments

Previous posts have discussed recess appointments.

Bruce Mehlman:

The Adjournment Clause: Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says the President “may adjourn [Congress] to such Time as he shall think proper” if the House & Senate cannot agree on when to adjourn. When Congress is adjourned, Presidents can make recess appointments to fill jobs in the Executive Branch that otherwise require confirmation, as most modern Presidents did before Congress stopped formally adjourning (by maintaining pro forma sessions) to prevent it. Some fear the House may vote to adjourn in 2025 while the Senate declines, empowering President Trump to send them home and recess appoint whomever he wants, avoiding the increasingly time-consuming task of Senate confirmation (chart). Will the 119th Congress advise & consent or adjourn & relent? Stay tuned.

Recess Appointments

Amber Phillips at WP:

“Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, adding that he wants positions filled “IMMEDIATELY!”

What Trump’s asking is technically constitutional, experts say, but would be a stark abdication of powers on the part of the Senate. And it could be just the beginning of Trump’s effort to get what he wants out of a Republican Congress.

...

 “What Trump is essentially doing is telling the Senate to give up one of its core constitutional roles,” said Sarah Binder, a constitutional expert at George Washington University. “The Senate’s role of advice and consent was to be a check on who the president wants to put in these positions."

In 2020, Trump threatened to force Congress to adjourn to make appointments without Senate approval.

...

Several Republican senators have said they’re open to Trump’s plan to bypass the nomination process.

That’s rare. Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said members of Congress are usually loathe to give up their constitutional power, even for presidents of the same party. Sometimes Congress has stayed in office in what’s known as a perfunctory “pro forma” session, rather than recess in full, to prevent presidents from installing appointees.

This time, all three leading Republican contenders for the Senate majority leader seem open to it. “100% agree,” Sen. Rick Scott (Florida) replied to Trump on social media. “I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible.” Sen. John Thune (South Dakota) told Fox News Digital that “all options are on the table.” And Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) said on social media that the Constitution “expressly confers the power on the President to make recess appointments."

From CRS:

Notwithstanding the legal opinions and practices of the preceding decades, a Department of Justice legal opinion and two federal appeals court decisions related to four controversial recess appointments made by President Barack Obama on January 4, 2012, raised questions about what a “recess” is with regard to the recess appointment power. 16 In a June 26, 2014, opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed these questions. It held that the President’s recess appointment power extends to both intersession and intrasession recesses. The Court also held that the President may use the recess appointment power essentially only during a recess of 10 days or longer. A Senate recess of 3 days “is not long enough to trigger the President’s recess appointment power,” and a recess of more than 3 days but less than 10 is “presumptively too short to fall within the Clause” but “leaves open the possibility that a very unusual circumstance could demand the exercise of the recess-appointment power during a shorter break.” The opinion gave as an example of an unusual circumstance an instance such as “a national catastrophe … that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response.” The Court noted that “political opposition in the Senate would not qualify as an unusual circumstance.” 17 Furthermore, the Court concluded that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, “the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.” 18 This implies that the Senate would also determine if and when it will adjourn for a recess of 10 days or longer and thus allow for the possibility of recess appointments. Under the Adjournments Clause of the Constitution, however, such a determination requires the consent of the House.19 Consequently, either the Senate or the House can unilaterally prevent a Senate adjournment of 10 days or longer that would permit the President to exercise his recess appointment authority.

 

Congress and Deliberation

  A number of posts have discussed congressional capacity, legislative productivity, and deliberation.

Jordan T. Cash and Kevin J. Burns at Law & Liberty:

The Senate’s smaller size, with senators representing the states and holding office for longer terms, ideally allows for more in-depth discussions and creates a degree of stability within the law. By contrast, the much larger House with its smaller districts and shorter terms, helps guarantee that the representatives are responsive to the public mood and that every geographic part of the country has an opportunity to have input into the formation of a law. These provisions not only encourage representative government but also promote legitimacy. Because Congress represents every part of the country, Philip Wallach argues in his recent book, Why Congress, “Only congressional deliberation is capable of tackling the [country’s] thorniest challenges in a way that the whole nation will accept as legitimate.”

Moreover, congressional debates can be taught in ways that might even engage students more than presidential speeches or The Federalist. While those works typically focus on presenting one side of an argument, congressional debates have counterarguments built into them. This provides students with the chance to read, understand, and perhaps even identify with different lines of argumentation presented in the same reading which can then be teased out in class discussions. Teaching congressional debates also allows students to see how abstract theoretical arguments may intertwine with the actual practice of politics and better understand the limits imposed by practice upon theory. Seeing how debate is promoted or stifled by congressional rules of procedure may further demonstrate how such ostensibly mundane issues contribute to the function (or dysfunction) of the institution.

Conservatives for More Hill Staff

  A number of posts have discussed congressional capacity, legislative productivity, and deliberation.

 Jim Saksa at Roll Call:

At a House Administration hearing last week exploring how Congress could react to the end of Chevron deference, a panel of conservative and liberal experts all advocated more staff.

Overall, staff levels in Congress haven’t changed much in the past half-century. According to the Congressional Research Service, there were an estimated 8,831 House staffers in 1977 and 9,247 in 2023, although a large part of that growth came from a roughly 300 percent increase in the number of leadership staffers. The number of committee staff, who are generally considered to be the subject matter experts of Congress, fell by more than a third, from upward of 2,000 in 1978 to just 1,170 in 2023.

Similarly, even though staff levels in the Senate have risen, committee staff showed the smallest increase, growing just 10 percent over the period between 1977 and 2022, from 1,084 to 1,194.

While adding lawmaking capacity has long been a no-brainer on the left, small-government conservatives have come around to the idea that the way to shrink the overall size of government is to make the legislative branch a little bigger first. “We were designed to be slow and methodical, not responsive, right?” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a conservative Georgia Republican. “So, the fallback was let’s just empower the agencies, but that hasn’t worked out so well, as we’ve seen.”

Deeming Resolutions

Many posts have discussed the federal budget. 

 Don Wolfensberger at The Hill:

In 30 of the last 49 years, Congress has not met the April 15 deadline for approving a budgetbudget resolution. The last time Congress completed action on all 12 appropriations by Oct. 1 was 1996. It has passed all 12 of the money bills only four times: in 1977, 1989, 1995 and 1997. In the last 11 of 13 years it has not enacted even one of the 12 money bills by Oct. 1.

Consequently, it has had to rely on stop-gap continuing appropriations resolutions (CRs) 131 times since 1995, averaging 4.2 times a year. The alternative to CRs are government shutdowns, which have occurred on five occasions since 1995, the longest lasting 35 days (Dec. 22, 2018 – Jan. 25, 2019). Meanwhile, Congress has piled-up increasing deficits and debt and has been forced 63 times since 1995 to rely on emergency supplemental appropriations bills.

Over the long term, the congressional budget process the congressional budget process has not been a pretty picture — more like a kindergarten class finger-painting mural than an impressionist’s landscape.

One handy device Congress has adopted to circumvent its failure to adopt a budget resolution that allows it to process spending bills has been the so-called “deeming resolution.” The House and Senate insert language containing all the requisite language of a budget resolution into a must-pass measure and deems it to be adopted with passage of the host measure.

While the two chambers have differing budget levels, that still frees-up the pending appropriations bills to move forward to the next house.

According to Congressional Research Service budget expert Megan S. Lynch, the “deeming” solution has been utilized in nine of the 13 fiscal years from 1999 to 2013 when Congress has not mutually agreed on a final budget resolution. I suspect that solution has been used ever since.

Congress: Neither Productive Nor Deliberative

A number of posts have discussed congressional capacity, legislative productivity, and deliberation.

Moira Warburton and  Ally J. Levine at Reuters:

The U.S. Congress is navigating yet another government funding deadline — the eighth in less than six months — and are at an impasse over sending aid to key allies in Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel. Divisions among Republicans in the House and Senate killed a major bipartisan border policy bill. Reforms to bedrock programs like Medicare and Social Security are desperately needed but no closer to getting passed. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives spent close to a month without a speaker last year due to infighting between moderate and hard right factions of the Republican party.

When U.S. Representative Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, begged his colleagues in November to “give me one thing I can campaign on and say we did,” he was articulating what many lawmakers and observers were feeling: Congress isn’t working.

 

Since the Reagan Era Congressional legislation has fallen by 2/3rds -- not to mention its failure to pass a full, on-time budget.
MORE pic.twitter.com/XbkFmuTPsu

— Laurie Garrett (@Laurie_Garrett) March 14, 2024

And it's not just about laws and measures -- Congress is simply spending less time doing its job. And a lot more time raising $$$ and engaging in shouting hearings and name-calling speechifying.
Who is running the United States of America?
What will this look like by 2030? pic.twitter.com/7xlfeOGTML

— Laurie Garrett (@Laurie_Garrett) March 14, 2024

AI Fellows on the Hill

Many posts have discussed the political uses of philanthropy. 

Brendan Bordelon at Politico:

Top tech companies with major stakes in artificial intelligence are channeling money through a venerable science nonprofit to help fund fellows working on AI policy in key Senate offices, adding to the roster of government staffers across Washington whose salaries are being paid by tech billionaires and others with direct interests in AI regulation.

The new “rapid response cohort” of congressional AI fellows is run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a Washington-based nonprofit, with substantial support from Microsoft, OpenAI, Google, IBM and Nvidia, according to the AAAS. It comes on top of the network of AI fellows funded by Open Philanthropy, a group financed by billionaire Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz.

The six rapid response fellows, including five with PhDs and two who held prior positions at big tech firms, operate from the offices of two of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s top three lieutenants on AI legislation — Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) — as well as the Senate Banking Committee and the offices of Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).

Alongside the Open Philanthropy fellows — and hundreds of outside-funded fellows throughout the government, including many with links to the tech industry — the six AI staffers in the industry-funded rapid response cohort are helping shape how key players in Congress approach the debate over when and how to regulate AI, at a time when many Americans are deeply skeptical of the industry.

The apparent conflict of tech-funded figures working inside the Capitol Hill offices at the forefront of AI policy worries some tech experts, who fear Congress could be distracted from rules that would protect the public from biased, discriminatory or inaccurate AI systems.