Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Eight members of Congress cited for doing the legislative branch proud

Rep. Donna Shalala, winner of a Congressional Management Foundation awared

Rep. Donna Shalala was one of two lawmakers recognized by the Congressional Management Foundation for fostering a healthy workplace environment.

Pool/Getty Images

Four lawmakers from each party were honored Tuesday for being good members of Congress. But they were cited for behavior that has nothing to do with their ideologies, legislative skill or rhetorical flair. Instead, they were singled out for running decent modern workplaces and taking care of their constituents.

The awards were the third annual set handed out by the Congressional Management Foundation, one of the most prominent nonprofits advocating the view that a more smoothly operating legislative branch is one of the main cures for democracy's ills.


The winners were culled from a roster of 26 finalistsunveiled in the spring that was notable for the disproportionate share of women (seven) and first-term lawmakers (nine). In the end, three women were honored, two of them Democratic newcomers to the House: Donna Shalala of Miami, who was Health and Human Services secretary in the Clinton administration, and Chrissy Houlahan of suburban Philadelphia, a former Air Force captain.

"Americans usually only hear about Congress when something goes wrong," noted the group's CEO, Brad Fitch, and it's important to "shine a light on Congress when it does something right."

Shalala and GOP Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska were cited for fostering a healthy workplace environment. Houlahan and GOP Rep. Michael Burgess of Texas got awards for running a transparent and accountable office.

For constituent service, the awardees were Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts. Singled out for their innovative and modernized operations were Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas and Democratic Rep. Mark Takano of California.


Read More

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026
a person is casting a vote into a box

Aspirations for the American Experiment Versus the Save Act of 2026

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act stands as the direct antithesis of our founders' aspirations for the American Experiment, eroding the core principles of popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Rather than cultivating a government that derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed," this legislative measure inverts that relationship. It transforms a natural right into a government-administered privilege, erecting bureaucratic barriers that conflict with the expansive, participatory democratic republic the Framers sought to construct.

Subverting the Consent of the Governed: the foundational premise of the American Experiment, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is that the legitimacy of a government hinges entirely on the active consent of its citizens. The SAVE Act disrupts this dynamic by fundamentally shifting the burden of proof.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.
The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

The Origins: The Clinton Administration

Keep ReadingShow less