Peter Friedmann’s View from Washington DC Do Nothing and Everybody Wins? Let’s say you are a Member of Congress who wants to be reelected, which is the case for all 435 members of the House of Representatives, since they are all up for reelection this year, and about a third of the United States Senate. Let’s say you actually want to get something done, so you can tell your constituents that you are working hard for them. But let’s say that you are in a Congress that is at odds with the President’s agenda, and at least in the Senate, is essentially at a stalemate, since neither party can pass legislation without the support of the other side of the aisle. So, if you can’t get anything done, how do you convince constituents that you are worth reelecting? The answer is pretty simple: you tell your constituents that you went to bat for them by preventing passage of legislation or doing something else that would be bad for them. For instance, if your constituents would think that President. Obama’s nominee for the US Supreme Court is too liberal, and would prefer to wait in hopes that there will be a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump who can nominate somebody more conservative next year, then you can brag that you prevented Judge Merrick Garland from being confirmed by the Senate this year. On the hand, if your constituents believe that this nominee is too conservative, and that a Bernie Sanders or even Hillary Clinton, if elected would nominate somebody more liberal, then you can brag to your constituents that you prevented him from being confirmed by the Senate. Either way, you can claim to have delivered something for your constituents, maybe without even doing anything! Liberal and conservative Senators, Republican and Democrats—everybody wins! (Except of course poor Judge Garland who is left to dangle in the wind, at least until the Lame-Duck Session of Congress, if not until next year, or perhaps permanently denied the confirmation.) Here Comes the Money! Over the course of the next few months, US Dept. of Transportation will be moving forward to issue grants from various programs they administer. This year, those grant announcements will come earlier than usual, due to their requirement that funds cannot be granted less than 60 days prior to an election. It’s a ‘good government’ thing that prevents the executive branch from trying to curry favor by sending out grants to impressionable voters just as they prepare to go to the polls. It’s a good rule in my view. So, we’re back to talking about the Lame-Duck. Every election year, when it appears that Congress is once again unable to legislatively advance controversial legislation, hope springs eternal that important policy can be taken care of during the so-called Lame-Duck—- the session of Congress which takes place after the elections, but before the new Congress is sworn in. The thinking is that members of Congress will be more likely to vote for a bill that they believe is substantively desirable, even if politically unpopular, at that time. Why? For two reasons: first, some will be free to vote their conscience because they have not been reelected (because they have been defeated, or just retired). So they will never have to be going back to those special interest groups that fund their campaigns and who insist on positions that the congressman or senator might not support except for his need to keep them in his camp. Sounds cynical doesn’t it? The second reason why it is possible to move legislation during Lame-Duck session is that this is the furthest away from the next time a Member of Congress will be running for reelection again. So the hope is that when standing for reelection two (House) or six y(Senate) years later, the special interest groups and constituents will forget how they voted during that ‘long ago’ Lame-Duck. But the fundamental quality of any bill that has a chance of advancing during lame-duck, is that it must be substantively good for the United States, one that members of Congress would vote for if they had the luxury of a secret ballot. They know is the right thing to do. As mentioned, special interest groups (on either side of a given issue) often play a role in preventing such bills for passing during the normal course of the congressional calendar. There are some current examples, for example the TransPacific Partnership or TPP. As one member of Congress who hails from a Congressional district in which organized labor is very strong, and thus is continuously under pressure to vote against trade expansion treaties, told me:, “Peter, we all know that if these trade bills came up in a secret ballot, and our friends upon whom we depend for reelection support would not know, these bills would pass almost unanimously.” Some have paid the price for challenging this reality. A case in point is Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. There was a Democratic Congressman in a ‘safe’ Democratic Congressional District who dared to go against labor, and voted for a trade bill that the AFL-CIO opposed. So they “took him outt” by running a sure anti-trade candidate in the primary, funded that challenger very well, got the vote out, and defeated the pro-trade incumbent. Lesson learned and message to the rest of the party delivered. Who was that challenger sponsored by the unions? Sherrod Brown, now a United States Senator, and a consistent and dependable opponent of trade expansion legislation, leading the opposition to the TPP. So, vote your conscience, at your own risk. There are many other examples, such as gun-control, abortion, education reform, where one does not wish to find oneself at odds with a powerful interest group (on either side) that has the resources to end your career in Congress. No wonder it is difficult to get Congress to take on and deal with the tough and controversial issues. Nonetheless, if there a chance for Members of Congress to walk this tightrope, it will be during the Lame-Duck this year.