Daniel Schuman
@americalabs.org
Progressive institutionalist with an interest in modernizing Congress and strengthening our democracy. Bluesky is my penance for working at an org that once encouraged Congress to tweet.
Like what you see? More at https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/
Like what you see? More at https://firstbranchforecast.substack.com/
Individual members of the conference may recommended changes to the Rules as the need arises... and may bring that proposal directly to the Conference for its consideration w/ 1 week notice. A self-executing rule change could provide for removal and require only a majority of conference vote.
November 10, 2025 at 5:17 PM
Individual members of the conference may recommended changes to the Rules as the need arises... and may bring that proposal directly to the Conference for its consideration w/ 1 week notice. A self-executing rule change could provide for removal and require only a majority of conference vote.
I'm turning this into the First Branch Forecast newsletter, but some initial notes.
November 10, 2025 at 12:04 AM
I'm turning this into the First Branch Forecast newsletter, but some initial notes.
You likely have it already, but it did show up in the movie Airplane II, from 1982.
October 18, 2025 at 2:28 PM
You likely have it already, but it did show up in the movie Airplane II, from 1982.
They've got it exactly backwards. Why should Dems be willing to negotiate with Republicans on anything if the appropriations agreement can be changed at will by the administration? They key item to negotiate are provisions to ensure approps deals are followed by the admin.
October 3, 2025 at 1:26 PM
They've got it exactly backwards. Why should Dems be willing to negotiate with Republicans on anything if the appropriations agreement can be changed at will by the administration? They key item to negotiate are provisions to ensure approps deals are followed by the admin.
Um. Going after the Southern Poverty Law Center?
October 2, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Um. Going after the Southern Poverty Law Center?
Tonight the Senate passed a Potemkin member security bill that won't protect members but will prevent oversight. The "privacy protections" it provides are for members only -- Sen. Cruz objected to efforts to provide privacy protections to all Americans or to only federal, state, and local electeds.
September 30, 2025 at 2:35 AM
Tonight the Senate passed a Potemkin member security bill that won't protect members but will prevent oversight. The "privacy protections" it provides are for members only -- Sen. Cruz objected to efforts to provide privacy protections to all Americans or to only federal, state, and local electeds.
Relevant language on congressional security in the recently Approps-passed CJS appropriations committee report
See p. 43 docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...
See p. 43 docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...
September 11, 2025 at 4:58 PM
Relevant language on congressional security in the recently Approps-passed CJS appropriations committee report
See p. 43 docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...
See p. 43 docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/...
I don't know who needs to know this, but a new DOJ OLC opinion dropped on Tuesday. www.justice.gov/olc/media/14...
September 4, 2025 at 3:26 PM
I don't know who needs to know this, but a new DOJ OLC opinion dropped on Tuesday. www.justice.gov/olc/media/14...
So, it looks like you can provide public announcements of classified briefings. Rep. Steil, House Admin Chair, put out this press statement.
cha.house.gov/press-releas...
cha.house.gov/press-releas...
September 4, 2025 at 3:24 PM
So, it looks like you can provide public announcements of classified briefings. Rep. Steil, House Admin Chair, put out this press statement.
cha.house.gov/press-releas...
cha.house.gov/press-releas...
That squad is shrinking...
September 4, 2025 at 2:36 PM
That squad is shrinking...
I thought you'd appreciate the irony of using free Google satellite view to take an image of the agency responsible for using satellites (and other mechanisms) to take pictures of others.
September 4, 2025 at 2:18 PM
I thought you'd appreciate the irony of using free Google satellite view to take an image of the agency responsible for using satellites (and other mechanisms) to take pictures of others.
I agree it's likely misleading language, used to get clicks?
Look at the AP lede: "The top ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says a classified meeting planned with a key U.S. spy agency was called off after it was criticized by Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist."
Look at the AP lede: "The top ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says a classified meeting planned with a key U.S. spy agency was called off after it was criticized by Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist."
September 4, 2025 at 2:15 PM
I agree it's likely misleading language, used to get clicks?
Look at the AP lede: "The top ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says a classified meeting planned with a key U.S. spy agency was called off after it was criticized by Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist."
Look at the AP lede: "The top ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says a classified meeting planned with a key U.S. spy agency was called off after it was criticized by Laura Loomer, a far-right conspiracy theorist."
This is a brilliant way to use speech or debate clause protections.
![Thomas Massie: "The survivors said that they had decided to compile their own [Epstein] list. But the reality is, if they try to release that list, they're going to be sued into homelessness... what my colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene volunteered to do, and I've volunteered to do as well, is to read that list on the floor of the House of Representatives, because our founders put into the Constitution Speech or Debate Immunity, which says that we can't be prosecuted for what we say on the floor of the House."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ra4gpdxejgppncm7ntha25p7/bafkreiffxbb67llrwrlogwfhqyfh766eyil33pkzf4hhepvzbzio4hokkq@jpeg)
September 4, 2025 at 2:06 PM
This is a brilliant way to use speech or debate clause protections.
The statement is a quote of Sen. Warner. Who wrote it? IDK, but his office attributes it to the senator. He seems to average a statement on his website every 2-3 days. It would make sense that he or a senior staffer reviewed it, and that he (or a senior staffer) directed it be issued.
September 4, 2025 at 1:42 PM
The statement is a quote of Sen. Warner. Who wrote it? IDK, but his office attributes it to the senator. He seems to average a statement on his website every 2-3 days. It would make sense that he or a senior staffer reviewed it, and that he (or a senior staffer) directed it be issued.
Right, but NGA's location is not classified, and we're not talking about disclosing the location, but the fact of the meeting itself. (Yes, it could be a classified address, but address != fact of the meeting.)
FWIW, Google maps has the location for the NGA.
FWIW, Google maps has the location for the NGA.
September 4, 2025 at 1:35 PM
Right, but NGA's location is not classified, and we're not talking about disclosing the location, but the fact of the meeting itself. (Yes, it could be a classified address, but address != fact of the meeting.)
FWIW, Google maps has the location for the NGA.
FWIW, Google maps has the location for the NGA.
Here is a fatal flaw: the number of bills introduced should not be used as "a primary measure of legislative productivity." Ironically, it is not appropriate to use legislative effectiveness scores from the Center on Effective Lawmaking to measure legislative effectiveness b/c they don't measure it
August 4, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Here is a fatal flaw: the number of bills introduced should not be used as "a primary measure of legislative productivity." Ironically, it is not appropriate to use legislative effectiveness scores from the Center on Effective Lawmaking to measure legislative effectiveness b/c they don't measure it
This is incorrect. The Statements of Disbursements have been published online since around 2009 (as a PDF). There's scrapers and tools available from Sunlight + ProPublica to get that data. It's been published as CSVs since 2016 and those CSVs were improved recently with more metadata.
August 4, 2025 at 2:54 PM
This is incorrect. The Statements of Disbursements have been published online since around 2009 (as a PDF). There's scrapers and tools available from Sunlight + ProPublica to get that data. It's been published as CSVs since 2016 and those CSVs were improved recently with more metadata.
This is a head-scratcher.
August 4, 2025 at 2:52 PM
This is a head-scratcher.
Generally speaking, it is the staff assistant that performs the "lowest" level of work, not the legislative correspondent, although I wouldn't frame it that way.
Staff assistants do policy work, too. And I wouldn't put sys admins under staff assistants.
Staff assistants do policy work, too. And I wouldn't put sys admins under staff assistants.
August 4, 2025 at 2:49 PM
Generally speaking, it is the staff assistant that performs the "lowest" level of work, not the legislative correspondent, although I wouldn't frame it that way.
Staff assistants do policy work, too. And I wouldn't put sys admins under staff assistants.
Staff assistants do policy work, too. And I wouldn't put sys admins under staff assistants.
If the authors of this report are online, I'd be happy to show where to find data about other measurements of member productivity, such as asking questions at hearing and responding to constituent requests.
August 4, 2025 at 2:47 PM
If the authors of this report are online, I'd be happy to show where to find data about other measurements of member productivity, such as asking questions at hearing and responding to constituent requests.
Just published (on Saturday): CIGIE's Investigative Committee finds allegations of misconduct against former AbilityOne IG Thomas Lehrich are substantiated.
Read it here: www.ignet.gov/sites/defaul...
Read it here: www.ignet.gov/sites/defaul...
July 28, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Just published (on Saturday): CIGIE's Investigative Committee finds allegations of misconduct against former AbilityOne IG Thomas Lehrich are substantiated.
Read it here: www.ignet.gov/sites/defaul...
Read it here: www.ignet.gov/sites/defaul...
This isn't getting enough attention. Here's House Republican's proposed 302(a) and 302(b) allocations (i.e., where the money goes for appropriations.
July 16, 2025 at 3:21 PM
This isn't getting enough attention. Here's House Republican's proposed 302(a) and 302(b) allocations (i.e., where the money goes for appropriations.
I'm reading unusual Senate Ethics Committee guidance. They opine that it violates Senate rules to categorically deny access to a Member's office because of ... actual or perceived relationship with any presidential administration.
![Dear Colleague:
United States Senate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
July 7, 2025
The Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) recently received multiple requests for advice regarding whether it is permissible under Senate Rules and related standards of conduct to permit or deny law firms, lobbying firms, and their clients access to a Member or a Member's office based on an actual or perceived relationship with a presidential administration.
In relevant part, Senate Rule 43 states that “[t]he decision to provide assistance to petitioners may not be made on the basis of contributions or services, or promises of contributions or services, to the Member's political campaigns or to other organizations in which the Member has a political, personal, or financial interest.”¹ Under circumstances similar to the most recent requests for Committee advice, in 1987 and 2002, the Committee iterated the restrictions and intent of Senate Rule 43.² Specifically, the Committee affirmed that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Members to offer special treatment or deny access based on party affiliation, political contributions, or past employment. The Committee further stated that it would also violate Senate Rule 43 to encourage others to offer special treatment or deny access based on the same criteria.
While there are many appropriate, practical, and necessary reasons for a Member or Senate employee to decline a meeting or other request, the categorical denial of access to a Member or a Member's office, or the encouragement of others to deny access, based solely on an actual or perceived political affiliation, history of campaign contributions, or the actual or perceived relationship with any presidential administration or executive branch department or agency would violate Senate Rule 43.
If you have questions not addressed in this letter regarding Senate Rule 43 or any other standard of conduct, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee at (202) 224-2981.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ra4gpdxejgppncm7ntha25p7/bafkreihe2wsrijdn75rmpuh4n63zhvhqiterj2f6okshf6pvu3o6jrsrue@jpeg)
July 9, 2025 at 1:14 PM
I'm reading unusual Senate Ethics Committee guidance. They opine that it violates Senate rules to categorically deny access to a Member's office because of ... actual or perceived relationship with any presidential administration.
The Capitol Police have a new chief.
June 30, 2025 at 3:12 PM
The Capitol Police have a new chief.
Here's the legislative language
June 26, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Here's the legislative language