Welcome to the First Branch Forecast, your regular look into the Legislative branch and government transparency. Subscribe here.

THE TOP LINE

They’re back? The House of Representatives returns for two days to pass a Budget resolution, a voting rights bill, and 12 suspension bills (including, we hope, the Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act.) The Senate does not return until September 13th. A classified briefing is set for House Members on Tuesday regarding Afghanistan. Except for a House Rules Committee hearing, we don’t see any meetings scheduled.

Don’t forget: The Library of Congress has a virtual public forum (which means you!) on its digital services set for Sept. 2nd. This is an opportunity to ask for new tools, features, and information from the Library.

OVERSIGHT OF CONGRESS

Public access to congressional records is the focus of two lawsuits filed by National Security Counselors on behalf of journalist Shawn Musgrave. The litigation is based upon the legal doctrine known as “a common law right of access” — that individuals have a right to inspect and copy public documents. We have long been frustrated by Congress’s non-disclosure of records it has required itself to make publicly available, although this litigation focuses on records that likely should be publicly available but may not be required to be available. For context, NARA’s FOIA Advisory Committee recently recommended extending FOIA or establishing a FOIA-like process to elements of the Legislative and Judicial branches. A few elements of the Legislative branch already have FOIA-like processes.

The two cases are Musgrave v. Manger and Musgrave v. Warner. You can read the court orders in the cases not because the federal courts make them available to you for free — they don’t and the courts are resisting open access efforts — but because a nonprofit organization created an online tool called RECAP (PACER spelled backwards) to crowdsource public access. But I digress.

Musgrave v. Manger contains four requests in one. The first request concerns U.S. Capitol Police surveillance footage from January 6th. The second request focuses on transparency at the U.S. Capitol Police, requesting records concerning their implementation of Appropriator-requested transparency measures to (a) create a FOIA-like process for the public to request USCP records, and (b) review and identify USCP Inspector General reports that could be made publicly available. The third request goes to the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and requests the release of their Security Policy Manuals, which governs the handling of national security information. The final request is for a House SAA-prepared report concerning the levels of clearances held by Congressional staff. (An analogous document is released by the IC.)

• According to the pleadings: (1) The Capitol Police are claiming that surveillance footage from January 6th used in support of criminal prosecutions are not public records. (2a) The Capitol Police appear to be unaware of the Appropriator-requested FOIA-like transparency process they are requested to implement and (2b) the Capitol Police IG did not respond to the request for its analysis of reports it could release. (3) The House’s General Counsel has (erroneously, in my view) asserted that its Security Manual could only be released by a majority vote of the full House and that the Manual is not a record; the Senate Office of Legal Counsel says the common law does not apply to Senate records and, even if it did, “significant national security interests” implicated by the release would outweigh disclosure. (4) The House’s General Counsel asserts the request should be made to the Appropriations Committee — which seems in tension with their assertion concerning their Security Manual — and that the report is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Musgrave v. Warner concerns the non-disclosure of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s torture report, which is 6,700 pages long and evaluates in significant detail the CIA’s “detention and interrogation” program, including many “inaccuracies” of claims made by the CIA and the agency’s efforts to mislead the public and the committee. Naturally, the Intelligence Community fought against the release of the damning document and only the Executive Summary was released in 2014 after an arduous declassification process that Senator Feinstein said included the CIA spying on committee staff. The report eventually will become subject to a declassification request in 2029 as part of President Obama’s records after significant shenanigans by Sen. Burr and the Intelligence Community that include Executive branch officials refusing to read the report and destroying the copies they held. The purpose of the report was for the Executive branch to learn lessons from its misbehavior, an effort that continues to be thwarted. The litigation asks for a copy of the report.

What does all this mean? This litigation appears to have two clever purposes. First, it is a good probe of whether courts would recognize a common law right of access to Legislative branch records, what such a right might encompass, and how it would work. Second, all of these records should be publicly available (with redactions in some instances) and this could be a good way to prod the House, Senate, and Capitol Police to address long standing deficiencies. In my view, the further we move from legislative deliberations — the work of member offices and committees — the stronger the arguments become in favor of disclosure of Congressional (and Judicial) records. There’s no good reason to treat the Capitol Police differently from the FBI or Secret Service. Will the courts get involved? IDK. Is it a good thing? IDK, but Congress could preempt this litigation by releasing the records and putting in place reasonable disclosure policies that would deprive journalists of such favorable factual circumstances.

Welcome to the First Branch Forecast, your weekly look into the Legislative branch and government transparency. No, it’s not Monday, but with the Congress away, it seemed best to send this lest we get inundated with out-of-office responses. We’re planning on taking a little break with Congress out unless something major happens… or we get bored. Subscribe here.

THE TOP LINE

The pay ceiling for senior House staff has been raised. Speaker Pelosi issued a pay order that increases the maximum potential salaries for many House staff to $199,300, which just happens to be the equivalent of an SES Level II. Staff salaries had been kept below pay levels for rank-and-file members, which themselves have been frozen at $174,000 since 2009 and are down the equivalent of $75k since 1992 (in constant dollars). By decoupling staff and member pay, it becomes possible to address long standing pleas from support offices and members alike that it is increasingly difficult to retain senior staff because of increasing costs of living and the tremendous opportunities to earn more elsewhere. This is a retention issue for support office computer programmers and skilled legislative drafters as well as staff directors and chiefs of staff — and an issue of equity with their Executive branch equivalents.

For non-senior staff, don’t feel left out: the House included in its Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill a 13% overall increase in funding, including funding to increase salaries for personal, committee, and leadership staff by 21%, which would return them to 2010 levels (adjusted for inflation). Thank Steny Hoyer; Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and the 110 Dems who signed her letter; every member of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress; Reps. Ryan, Lofgren, and DeLauro; and a bunch of civil society groups who have been tirelessly pushing this issue. This isn’t a zero sum game, btw: it’s possible to pay all staff significantly more and to increase the top line. The big question is whether the Senate agrees to the House’s proposed funding levels for the first branch of government.

This is one piece of a larger puzzle to strengthen and diversify Congress: paid internships, an Office of Diversity and Inclusion, a central HR hub, proposals to unionize political staff and create pay floors and pay scales, and so on. You can find one of Demand Progress’s proposals to increase the pay staff cap here; and we would be remiss if we did not mention Rep. Graves’ amendment to the Leg Branch Appropriations bill, which was not ruled in order, and would have increased the staff pay cap.

What’s a pay order? Uhh, I don’t really want to talk about it right now, but the Speaker’s authority to do this in the House is set out in statute, although finding the actual orders can be challenging. As an aside, some members of Congress earn more than the base rate: according to CRS, the Speaker earns $223,500 and the President Pro Tempore and Leaders earn $193,000.

Caveats. I should add that some Legislative branch staff — according to CRS, anyway — already earn more than rank-and-file members of Congress, such as the Comptroller General, the Librarian of Congress, and so on. I can’t tell what they are actually paid, however, because there is a pay free for certain senior officials — political appointees? — which includes some members of the Legislative branch who are appointed by the president. (Why they are appointed by the president is another issue entirely.) In addition, this year’s Leg Branch Appropriations Bill sets the AOC and USCP Chief’s salaries at Executive Schedule II, leaving the potentially anomalous result that some Legislative branch agency chiefs will be subject to the freeze (and thus paid less) while others would not. It also could create anomalous pay levels for politicals versus non-politicals. You know, this would be a great question for CRS.

Welcome to the First Branch Forecast, your weekly look into the Legislative branch and government transparency. Subscribe here. A preview of coming distractions: if Congress takes a break, we may take one, too. Wouldn’t that be nice.

THE TOP LINE

Members of Congress can force policy change without moving a bill. Rep. Bush made that clear last week in a successful effort to extend the eviction moratorium. There were a lot of unusual circumstances, and we are highlighting her efforts only to make the point that moving the nature of the debate — which can’t be measured by counting up co-sponsored bills — can be just as meaningful as getting a bill enacted. In this case, she prompted Pres. Biden to act, which also highlights how much responsibility Congress has ceded to the Executive branch.

It’s critical to avoid the trap that a powerful Congress necessitates in-person Congress. In last week’s Slow Build newsletter, Nancy Scola connects Rep. Bush’s success with an argument around Congress operating in-person. We note (as Scola does) that the House was out. In our opinion, what helped Rep. Bush was that the Senate was in — and not much else was happening — which prompted reporters stuck on the Hill to tell other stories, i.e. Bush’s. In other words, it was the ability to get attention. In a fully remote House, Rep. Bush would have had legislative options available to raise the matter on the floor instead of having to sleep upright on the Capitol steps.

America unmasked too quickly — or failed to mask at all — that much is clear. The House will extend its emergency proxy voting stop-gap measures through the fall and potentially through the end of the year. 20 House Members declared “Congress should be considering a vaccine requirement for Members and staff of the U.S. Capitol complex or, at minimum, twice per week testing for those who are unable to verify positive vaccination status,” an issue which Speaker Pelosi dodged. We are unsure how a mandate could be enforced against Members, but it is a reasonable step; there’s an open question about whether the Senate would agree to extending a requirement to support agencies. Universal vaccination is the sine qua non of in-person deliberations — alongside mandatory mask wearing — while COVID infections increase, and may be insufficient should new highly-transmissible variants be vaccine resistant. Our own Taylor Swift, who has testified before Congress on its continuity, has some tough-love advise for the Senate.

House Admin’s hearing on renovating the Cannon House Office Building, which we detail below, prompts us to consider: What does a modern congressional office building look like? The changing nature of work demands accessible, safe facilities, ones that can accomodate our hybrid remote/IRL activities.

The debt ceiling still looms. Ugh.

The Library of Congress will host a public forum on Congress.gov on September 2nd from 1 to 4pm ET. You can read what we wrote about the last one here — come with your recommendations on what you’d like to see them take on.

Welcome to the First Branch Forecast, your weekly look into the Legislative branch and government transparency. Subscribe here.

THE TOP LINE

Congress enacted the Security supplemental with a 98-0 vote in the Senate, a 416-11 vote in the House, and a signature from the President. Six House Dems voted no. (The amended bill text is here.)The $2.1 billion bill includes significant non-congressionally related funds, such as $1.2 billion to help Afghan nationals resettle and to provide aid to neighboring countries; $521 million to reimburse the national guard for its deployment to the U.S. Capitol; $300 million to harden the Capitol Complex; $70 million for the Capitol Police for overtime, bonuses, new equipment, and training; and $42 million for employees and contractors who otherwise would have been laid off during the pandemic.

Leg Branch Approps passed the House on Wednesday, which included a top line funding increase of 13.8% and a lot of good stuff in the report language. All the appropriations bills passed the House except Defense, Homeland Security, and CJS. CJS was set for a floor but was delayed because police unions objected to tying grants to taking steps to end chokeholds, end ‘no-knock’ warrants, eliminate racial profiling, and eliminate sexual contact between officers and people in their custody.” This appears to also have an election-related dimension.

Senate Appropriations start this week, with the chamber aiming to hold markups on Agriculture, Energy and Water, and MilCon.

The Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act passed the House and is now up for Senate consideration; the Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act was brought up on the House floor but was delayed by Rep. Greene, who requested a roll call vote — part of an effort this past week to delay legislative proceedings. These bills embody significant wins for Congressional transparency. Democrats and Republicans praised the bipartisan work that went into the CBJTA prior to the objection; and had similar praise for ACMRA prior to its passage.

The House Modernization Committee favorably reported 20 recommendations — a literal score — that aim to strengthen staff benefits and diversity, provide more opportunities for interns and fellows, and increase Capitol Hill accessibility. More on this below.

Masks are back at the Capitol after the Office of the Attending Physician required House members and encouraged senators to wear masks on the floor and in the hallways. At the White House, staff will now be required to wear masks indoors regardless of vaccination status. Winter is coming.