Mediaboss Marketing

(Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

Its a slightly comical transportation system in the bowels of the U.S. Capitol that few Americans know exists: the Senate subway system. Not subway like Metro but two sets of tracks that carry underground trams ferrying lawmakers from Senate chambers to their office buildings, less than a third of a mile away.

And its the unlikely backdrop to the tumultuous Capitol Hill legislative goings-on of the past seven months.

The subway and its adjoining no-frills, fluorescent-lit station platform have long been a gathering place for the swarm of Capitol Hill journalists, aides and lobbyists who aim to pounce on senators as they disembark from trams or hitch a ride in the same car as a fellow lawmaker, hoping to bend an ear for the 90-second ride from one station to another.

But at a time when Congress has all but abandoned regular order with legislation crafted in secret, public hearings placed on the back burner and pivotal actions determined by razor-thin vote margins the transit-station jockeying has taken on new levels of intensity and importance.

Stand at the bank of trains long enough and youll get a momentary reading on the state of American politics: Theres former House speaker Newt Gingrich, setting off a flurry of speculative tweets when hes spotted disembarking from a train to the Capitol. Theres Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), jumping over the live tracks to ditch a gaggle of reporters seeking details on the Affordable Care Act repeal vote.

There are warnings from the Senate Media Gallery that the subway platforms are too crowded with the hoards of journalists seeking reactions to President Trumps latest tweets. A lobbyist, waiting for one of the trains, turns to a slightly bewildered-looking police officer.

Is it me, she says, or are things really crazy here today?

And there, in the middle of the night, minutes before a climactic vote on the repeal of Obamacare, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has a heart-to-heart with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) about his upcoming vote as they make their way from the Russell Senate Office Building to the Senate chambers, a conversation so meaningful that Murphy later said he plans to share it with his grandchildren.

The subway tunnels snaking underneath the Capitol have always been busy, said Donald A. Ritchie, the Senate historian emeritus. But of late, the system has reached new levels of stardom.

Its a little like Times Square down there now, Ritchie said.

[Inside the heaving, jostling Capitol media mob: We are one tripped senator away from disaster.]

The feverish atmosphere may be new, but the underlying infrastructure is not. The need to build an underground Capitol transportation network came more than 100 years ago, when new office buildings were being built beside the Capitol to meet the demands of lawmakers seeking their own office space. To win over the senators miffed at the prospect of exile in an adjacent building, architects came up with a compromise: The government would build a transportation system to ferry lawmakers back and forth to the Senate for casting votes, a chore that sometimes takes place several times per day.

The tunnel to the offices first featured electric Studebaker automobiles; later, officials switched to trains on tracks out of concern that a lawmaker would one day get mowed over by a careering car.

After multiple rounds of expansions and upgrades, there are now two types of trains on the Senate side: an open-air tram to the Russell building driven by operators who ping-pong back-and-forth all day, and a Disneyland-style driverless train that runs from the Capitol to the Dirksen and Hart office buildings.

Back when the tunnels were first built, such an investment in infrastructure for a rarefied few seemed excessive.

And now, to many, it still seems like an excessive expense. But Ritchie defended the system.

If the Capitol had been designed as a 60-story building, youd have a bank of elevators and you wouldnt be surprised, he said.

[Some senators need a lift, others use the elevator to go bunning for cover]

Many of the design changes over the years have reflected shifts in Congresss cultural sensibilities. After Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) joined the Senate 1949, Plexiglass shields were installed on the open-air trains. (Gusts from the 15-mph train rides mussed her hair to the point that she sat with her head ducked low in the cab.)

And the newer set of cars were designed for accessibility, which helped accommodate lawmakers such as former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a Vietnam War veteran who had lost both legs and his right forearm and used a wheelchair during six years in the Senate.

Some politicians refusal to use the subway served as a political message. Former senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) refused to take the train in a protest against government waste and forbid his staff from riding too. Hard-charging former senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) were both known for skipping the trains to power-walk through the adjacent tunnel walkways.

And occasionally, the Senate subway has been a place of confrontation. In 1950, as Smith prepared to give a speech on the growing risks that McCarthyism posed to freedom of speech, she was approached by none other than Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) as she boarded the train to the Capitol.

Margaret, you look very serious, Smith later recalled McCarthy saying. Are you going to make a speech?

Yes, she responded, and you will not like it.

According to Smith, McCarthy used the rest of the subway ride to make threatening remarks in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to intimidate her from making the speech.

[The U.S. Capitols shadow army of nighttime workers]

But for the most part, the subway is a place of bipartisan goodwill.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) recalled that his first meeting with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) took place on a train. In his memoir, Franken called the transit run-in a real meet-cute Grassleys opening line: You look just like you look on TV! and the subway-train bonding session laid the groundwork for extensive legislative co-sponsorship.

Rushing out of the Capitol and back to his office last month, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) said that hed occasionally time his subway ride strategically to catch a colleague and talk policy. Once, he said, he used the 90 seconds on the subway to persuade the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to move a federal judge.

Weve gotten some deals done on the train, Cardin said. I mean, youre looking for somebody, and you know you have a captured audience for about a minute. For the Senate, thats a long time.

And Ritchie, the historian, has caught more than one heartwarming senatorial moment inside a packed Capitol Hill train. One time, he said, he stepped into a subway car and encountered a group of senators on their way to vote on a bill doomed to fail that would have ceded the District of Columbia to Maryland.

One lawmaker turned to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and quipped: Bernie, why doesnt Vermont take the District?

Oh no, were planning to annex Quebec, Sanders shot back, according to Ritchie.

The banter proceeded among the senators, with more and more preposterous proposals, until Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) piped up.

Whatever you do, Cochran said, chuckling, dont secede. We tried it, and it doesnt work.

That type of idle joking and banter, Ritchie said, is an important part of fostering civility across the political aisle.

The real problem is that theres so little social time between them, outside of the legislative process, Ritchie said. Those few 90 seconds on the trains may be one of the very few off-camera moments they have when they can actually joke with each other. You have to make the most of that time.

Those interactions, however, might be growing increasingly rare. Bipartisanship in Congress is arguably at an all-time low. The senatorial gentility of yore has, at times, given way to the rancor and harsh words of the Twitter age.

And then, theres the most troublesome shift of all: the advent of the Fitbit.

As Cardin power-walked down the walkway next to the Dirksen-Hart subway line, he admitted that he hardly ever rides the train anymore.

The senator lifted his hand and pointed to the slim black band on his wrist.

I gotta get my steps in, he said, as another train zoomed by.

[Aug. 1994: Is the Senate subway going down the tubes?]

Read more:
The Senate subway: The new epicenter of American democracy? - Washington Post

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to want fundamental changes in Indias pluralistic democracy and not for the better. Photograph: EPA

When the British departed from the subcontinent 70 years ago, the most appropriate epitaph was probably provided by an Indian official who remarked: You British believe in fair play. You have left India in the same condition of chaos as you found it. The months that followed the partitioning ofBritish India seemed to confirm the nature of the gift of independence. The subcontinent endured a lawless, bloody anarchy that encompassed some of the 20th centurys greatest migrations and crimes. Born in blood were two newly created nations of mostly-Hindu India, and Pakistan, a Muslim homeland in south Asia, as well as about 500 feudal autocracies, which ranged from princely states some as large as a European nation to village-sized chiefdoms. When the British predicted there would be many more partitions, it was because the former colonial masters thought no one can make a nation out of a continent of many nations.

In Pakistan, that forecast came partly true, thanks largely because of an attempt to impose a single language Urdu on its most populous province, East Bengal. By 1971, after a civil war in which India played a part in stoking, Pakistan had been cleaved in two. The unfinished business of princely states remains: continuing revolts in Pakistans Baluchistan, Indias Kashmir and Manipur are rooted in identities distinct from the nations that swallowed them up. However, gloomy prophecies of fragmentation have been proved wrong decade after decade in India despite the poverty and diversity. It is perhaps Indias greatest achievement that one-sixth of humanity now cast their votes regularly in free and fair elections.

Unlike democracy in the west where voters first had to be rich men, then adult men and later women, Indias democracy came into being peacefully in 1951 with its first general election where every citizen irrespective of gender, caste, creed, religion, occupation, wealth or level of literacy got to vote. It is also a democracy where the military have been confined to their barracks in peacetime. Almost alone in the non-western world barring a brief interruption in 1975 India has clung doggedly to its democratic convictions. Voting is only one part of a liberal democracy. Indias noble aim of political equality is undermined by a creaking criminal justice system, flagrant interference in its public institutions and the inability toeliminate large-scale political corruption. Freedom ofexpression, necessary for true democracy, does not exist in full measure. India is a land of taboos where almost every fundamentalist be it religious, linguistic or regional cancall for books to be banned or film sets burned. That India was the first country to ban the Satanic Verses is a blot onits democracy.

Indians were once in academia described as Homo Hierarchicus, a species of human who most intensely practised inequality. This in-built discrimination chained Dalits and women for centuries. Indias laws abolished untouchability and made men equal to women, yet in practice violence and prejudice continue. Thanks to casteism and bigotry against Indias tribal peoples, the country is home to the worlds largest slave population. However, we can see examples ofeveryday equality between people in India. The link between a persons occupation and their caste is weakening, thanks in part to the worlds biggest affirmative action programme. Theres also evidence that women are choosing their own spouses, abigshift in a nation where marriage was seen as a contract between families.

In an Asian century, India has long been considered as a democratic counterweight to its larger authoritarian neighbour, China. Last year Indias economy grew faster than Chinas, although alarming pollution levels suggest Delhi risks making many of Beijings mistakes. Worryingly, Indian and Chinese troops have in recent weeks been engaged in a tense Himalayan standoff. But Indias biggest threat is internal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is an impressive politician but he also runs a government backed by rightwing Hindu extremists who condone and actively support violence against minorities, especially Muslims. Like its less-peopled cousin, the European Union, India works because no single culture or language is central to its identity or mandatory for unity. Mr Modi seems to want fundamental changes in Indias pluralistic democracy and not for the better. The quest for equality and the rule of law have shown impressive resilience in India, but they are under threat from within.

View original post here:
The Guardian view on India at 70: democracy in action - The Guardian

Vice President Pence assured U.S. allies in South America on Monday that the Trump administration will work with them to address the crisis in Venezuela as the country descends into a "dictatorship."

"The American people will always come alongside allies like Colombia should this crisis continue to drive a greater refugee flow into Colombia and neighboring countries," Pence told reporters gathered at a chapel in Cartagena, Colombia.

The vice president, whose trip comes days after President Trump declined to rule out a military option in Venezuela, said he was asked by Trump to send a clear message during his trip to the Nicolas Maduro regime that the Venezuelan leader's attempt "to change the laws and the structures and ultimately, the constitution in Venezuela to full dictatorship [is] simply unacceptable."

"The United States is going to continue to send a message of resolve and determination," Pence said, reiterating that the U.S. has "many options with regard to Venezuela to ultimately make it possible for the people of Venezuela to see their democracy restored."

White House officials have said Pence's visit to Colombia and other allies in South America is meant to turn up the pressure on Venezuelan President Maduro, who has sought to consolidate power in the country by installing a controversial constitutional assembly and replacing the attorney general, who was a forceful critic of the Maduro machine.

Pence will travel to Buenos Aires, Argentina, later Monday, followed by stops in Chile and Panama City.

Read more:
Pence: US determined to see 'democracy restored' in Venezuela - Washington Examiner

Welcome to the sound of silence. As of noon next Monday, the lives of Londoners will no longer be punctuated by the bongs of Westminster. Those 10ominous strokes which herald ITNs News at Ten will seem incongruous not apt. For Big Ben (the clock and tower to which that great bells name has spread), is due for repair and the tolling will cease for the next four years. The builders are certainly taking their time about it.

Big Ben has been silenced before, of course: to protect Parliament from German Zeppelins (in case the bombers could hear the bells); for the funerals of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher; for briefperiods of maintenance work. But on this occasion its as if the city were having a heart transplant. While surgeons tinker away at the pulmonary arteries, we are left staring at a monitor that is flatlining.

Big Ben, as his name suggests, is less a giant grandfather clock...

Continue reading here:
Silencing Big Ben is like stopping the heartbeat of our democracy - Telegraph.co.uk

The current investigations into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections aim to shine daylight on crucial issues for our democracy. Oddly, some in Congress have called for curtailing key aspects of their own investigations until Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation has concluded, threatening a long-standing congressional responsibility to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people.

Just last week, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob GoodlatteBob GoodlatteJudiciary Committee Republicans want a second special counsel: report Mnuchin: Trump administration examining online sales tax issue Republicans battle within party over online sales tax bill MORE, said that "Until Mr. Muellers investigation is complete, it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues he is investigating. In June, Congressman Trey GowdyTrey GowdyThese 5 House Republicans are ripping their Senate colleagues over healthcare House Intelligence Republican: Claims Gowdy acted as second lawyer for Kushner 'horses---t' GOP lawmaker wants former Obama aide to testify MORE, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Majority Leader John CornynJohn CornynNew GOP immigration bill would drastically increase border surveillance: report The growing Chinese threat to advanced technology industries GOP senators ask Trump to hold off on Venezuelan oil sanctions MORE, the second-ranking Senate Republican,expressed similar views.

But we disagree.

Congress, on the other hand, has the Constitutional mandate to investigate broader issues than that of a law enforcement probe. When properly conducted, congressional oversight is essential to keeping the executive branch accountable, and to ensuring that our democracys system of checks and balances works.

So far, both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have correctly resisted calls to curtail their investigations in Russian election meddling while the independent Special Counsel proceeds. These two committees are undertaking a largely bipartisan examination they are holding hearings, demanding documents, and interviewing witnesses as part of a rigorous investigation.

As part of this investigation, Congress needs to provide the public with the facts, and then grapple with the underlying issues. Unlike a special prosecutor, Congress can explore not only whether the law was broken but also whether possible ethical violations require new laws. For example, Congressional investigators can ask how to strengthen the Foreign Agent Registration Act. They could also determine steps to increase protections for the integrity of elections.

Many past Congressional investigations led to reforms that would not have been enacted had the inquiries been limited to criminal law enforcement. For example, the Watergate Committees work led to the passage of landmark government reforms such as improved campaign finance laws, a strengthened Freedom of Information Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and the Inspectors General Act. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee conducted its investigation into the Jack Abramoff lobbying and corruption scandal in parallel with numerous criminal prosecutions, resulting not only in nearly 20 people pleading guilty or being convicted, but also in the passage of a number of lobbying disclosure and ethics rules and the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Are there too many cooks in the kitchen? That is a manageable problem as well. Experts at a July 11 hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, including those with Iran-Contra and Watergate experience, described the legal and procedural approaches to ensure that different investigations do not step on each others toes. Communication between Mueller and Congress is essential.

Similarly, the different House and Senate players should coordinate among themselves, as they have successfully many times in the past. For example, when the Iran-Contra investigations launched in 1987, the House and Senate came together and established a special joint committee to examine allegations that senior officials in the Reagan administration secretly facilitated arms sales to Iran in violation of an arms embargo.

This bipartisan, bicameral examination engaged many members from key congressional committee, with differing points of view and expertise. Ultimately, the investigative work of Congress resulted in important reforms, including government oversight over covert action.

Clearly, concerns about Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, which bear on the integrity of our democratic institutions, demand congressional attention. Criminal investigations examine the past. History tells us that Congress can and must examine a broader set of issues to craft solutions that look to the future.

Danielle Brian is the executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a watchdog organization that champions good government reforms, and has testified before Congress on its oversight role. Faiza Patel is the co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program. Both organizations have recently released reports on the topic.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Continue reading here:
Congressional investigations not just special counsels strengthen our democracy - The Hill (blog)