Gone Again -- Looking Forward

Having accomplished nothing in September, the 118th Congress--the least productive in over 150 years--is now in recess until after the election.

Jerry Weiss

Oct 08, 2024

Writer’s Note:

Since institutions like the House of Representatives are democracy’s bulwark against tyranny, it’s beneficial to expand our understanding and appreciation of their day-to-day operation. For that reason, I occasionally step away from the issues currently in the headlines to delve more deeply into some less publicized proceedings of the chamber. Today’s post is one of those occasions.

The essay is longer than usual. But I’ve tried to be as concise as possible so as to convey the material clearly without wasting your time. Thanks for your patience. -- J W

What to expect in the 119th Congress

When the House re-convenes on November 12, there will be 52 calendar days, just 20 legislative days, before all Members’ terms expire and the 118th Congress becomes history.

Regardless of the election results, during this “lame duck” session they must pass 12 appropriation bills before December 19 in order to fund the US Government through Fiscal Year 2025. Crucially, these bills must be crafted so they can also pass the Democratic-controlled Senate and be signed by the Democratic President. So with no time to waste, and with MAGA extremists likely to remain obdurate, the funding bills will need to be supported by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and his de facto cross-party alliance.

Ever since Spring of 2023, when his alliance came together to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by raising the debt limit, Mr. Jeffries has been solely responsible for preventing the 118th Congress from becoming not just unproductive but actively destructive of America’s interests and security.

Without the bipartisan agreements he was able to construct, there would have been no military assistance for Ukraine, and Russia would by now be engaged in the next phase of their aggressive expansionism. Moreover, the workings of our own government would itself have ground to a halt, perhaps more than once.

All of this—obstruction of legislation, default on the debt, Ukrainian military defeat, government shutdown—was on the House MAGA “to-do” list in January 2023 when the 118th Congress convened. So MAGA having failed on three of their four objectives, what can we expect next year?

Amidst the MAGA dross, a glimmer of hope emerges.

As next month’s election nears, there’s no doubt which party has the advantage of a growing momentum.

Outside of their hardcore MAGA base, Republicans have been remarkably unable to build enthusiasm for their candidates among the general electorate. Unsurprisingly, the party’s attempt to build a faux grass-roots voter engagement operation by using paid contractors has been a pathetic failure.

Democrats, on the other hand, have an energetic, motivated and well-organized network of volunteers working with experienced professionals in communities all across the country. Dems have consolidated and enlarged their base, while attracting an ever-increasing proportion of independents. And in recent days, we’ve seen the campaign initiate a robust effort aimed at persuading traditional Republicans to actively join the struggle against MAGA extremism.

Typically, in the final days of a campaign the “undecided” segment of voters breaks definitively in one way or the other. With less than a month to go, there’s little reason to suspect that such a break would be towards the flailing Republicans. The likelihood is that we will have a Democratic President and a Democratic House of Representatives next year. And a 50-50 tied, or even majority Democratic, Senate remains a distinct possibility.

The point of this assessment is not just to stroke our readers’ partisan pleasure zone. On the contrary, it is to call attention to the responsibility we will bear next year for strengthening the institution we are committed to defending.

The House of Representatives is the beating heart of our democratic republic.

By design, it reflects the full spectrum of American political engagement. And in order to function effectively, the majority party must be ever-mindful of the legitimate interests of citizens represented by the minority party. In this regard, the 119th Congress will present a unique and formidable challenge.

In the wake of a likely decisive GOP defeat in the 2024 election, the Republican Party may be facing an existential crisis. Not only would this be the party’s third successive “lost” election. It would also be reflective of the decimation wrought to its internal structure by Donald Trump and his allies. It’s an open question whether the old party can be resurrected, or whether there will even remain the will to try doing so.

In any case, the Republican caucus most certainly will not be a unified body, nor will it be operating by predictable norms under strong leadership. With such a fractured opposition, the temptation will be strong for Democrats to wield power with a sense of self-righteousness far out of proportion to their actual margin of victory — just because they can. It will be important to proceed cautiously, and graciously, with an honorable respect for those with whom we disagree.

With all this in mind, we should be prepared to make distinctions between MAGA extremists and traditional conservative Republicans. It’s fair to keep in mind that the latter have been complicit in facilitating the rise of MAGA extremism. For that, they will always bear responsibility and, to whatever extent they are capable, shame.

Nonetheless, as Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has reminded us, at crucial moments in the last two years they have provided the votes necessary to avoid an American default on its debt, repeatedly prevent a government shutdown, and provide funding for military assistance to Ukraine. Unlike the MAGA faction, whom former Speaker Kevin McCarthy famously described as “wanting to burn the place down”, these traditional Republicans have demonstrated their allegiance to the institution in which they serve. And we will need to recognize who they are, so that the concept of a loyal opposition in the People’s House is preserved for future generations.

Two of these traditional conservative Republicans recently appeared at an under-reported hearing before the House Rules Committee.

The committee had invited members from both parties to suggest changes to the Standing Rules for the 119th Congress. On what it termed “Member Day”, ten members presented their proposals as to what could be done differently next session. But before looking at what was said, it’s worth reviewing exactly who the members of this powerful committee are, and what it’s role is in the legislative process.

The most powerful committee in the House

As its name suggests, the Rules Committee has jurisdiction over the sometimes obscure Standing Rules for how the House of Representatives functions on a daily basis. Changes to these are known as Original Jurisdiction matters.

While jurisdiction over Standing Rules is exceptionally consequential, it is another category of jurisdiction that gives this committee its nearly unlimited power over what happens in the chamber: Special Rules.

Special Rules establish the terms and conditions of debate for each bill that goes to the House floor. This includes specifying the number and types of amendments allowed to be introduced, if any, and setting the amount of time members can speak in support or opposition to the bill.

It all sounds fairly mundane. What raises it beyond the mundane is that, in normal order, every bill that goes to the floor for a vote must first pass through the Rules Committee. So having control over the Rules Committee means ultimately controlling the entire legislative process. The Speaker runs the House through the Rules Committee. That’s why it’s sometimes known as “the Speaker’s Committee.” (Originally, the Speaker was also the Chair of the Rules Committee.)

According to the committee’s own website:

The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that the Rules Committee cannot do.

Note the qualifier: “so long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule…”

The Speaker’s party holds a 9 to 4 majority of committee membership. Because of the scope of their power, members appointed to the Rules Committee are typically among the most loyal to leadership. And by long-standing tradition, they always vote as a unified bloc on whether to send legislation to the floor.

Likewise by long-standing tradition, the majority party on the floor always votes unanimously for whatever rules the committee establishes. Party members are free to vote against the bill itself, but never against the rules that allow the bill to proceed.

At least that was the case until the 118th Congress convened.

Rules Committee Members

Like all congressional committees, members of the Rules Committee are appointed by the leaders of each party at the beginning of the new Congress. Since all House members serve the same two-year terms, this happens every other January, following the November elections. The 118th Congress convened on January 3, 2023. Republicans held a 222-212 majority, and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was nominated to become Speaker of the House.

As we all remember, the Republican majority was unable to elect a Speaker on that day due to the intransigence of a small group of MAGA extremists. While Kevin McCarthy enjoyed overwhelming support within the GOP caucus, without MAGA votes he could not attain the Speakership.

Cunningly, among the concessions they demanded from Mr. McCarthy in exchange for their votes was representation on the Rules Committee. Desperate to become Speaker, he acquiesced, appointing 3 of their number to the (9 Rep/4 Dem) committee: Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. In order to attain the Speakership, Kevin McCarthy traded away the authority of the office he sought. That concession effectively gave the MAGA faction veto power over every piece of legislation to be introduced through ordinary procedure.

As it happened, the MAGA 3 never directly used their power to defeat a rule in committee by joining with the minority. But a dissenting vote by 2 of them (a previously unheard of move) signaled to their MAGA comrades on the floor that a bill could be killed there, regardless of the breadth of its support, by defeating the Special Rule, thereby preventing a vote on the bill itself from ever taking place.

The combination of a threat to defeat a rule in committee, along with the unprecedented action of defeating one on the floor, allowed the small MAGA extremist faction to disrupt and obstruct the orderly functioning of the People’s House for two years. That’s why it was the least productive since the Civil War.

What were the Member Day suggestions?

Keep in mind that this Member Day hearing, like so many congressional hearings, is mostly performative. That is, there will be no extended discussion of the ideas proposed. Nor will there be a vote on any of them. Indeed, the Rules Committee for this Congress has no authority to establish rules for the next one.

Nonetheless, because some committee members do serve on the same committee over successive Congresses, “Member Day” is an opportunity to call attention to proposals for their later consideration. So it’s instructive to review the contributors’ testimony with an eye toward evaluating which are purely performative and which are serious.

Predictably, there was little explicit reference to the dysfunction of the 118th that we’ve all just witnessed. But opening statements of the Republican Chair and the Democratic Ranking Member do illustrate how differently the two parties approach their responsibility as legislators.

Chairman Michael Burgess (R-TX) opened the meeting with a perfunctory welcome to members who had come to testify, before declaring that he first wanted to review the “accomplishments” of the Rules Committee during the 118th Congress. He was particularly proud of the fact that they had considered double the number of bills as the previous Congress. Given that the number of bills actually passed into law by the 118th is the smallest in modern history, merely “considering” an especially large number of bills seems less like an accomplishment and more like a waste of time.

As if to make this very point, at their previous meeting two days earlier the committee considered six bills:
HR 3724 - End Woke Higher Education Act
HR 4790 - Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act
HR 5179 - Anti-BDS Labeling Act
HR 5339 - Protecting Americans’ Investments from Woke Policies Act
HR 5339 - No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act
HJ Res. 136 – Congressional disapproval of EPA rule relating to pollutant emission standards for model year 2027 vehicles
One need do nothing more than read the names of these bills to understand that they will never become law. And yet, the committee spent hours “considering” them, discussing each in turn as though engaged in a serious legislative proceeding.

Mr. Burgess also cited the accomplishment of establishing two new committees. One is charged with investigating the strategic competition between the U.S. and the Communist Party of China. To be fair, this committee has shown itself to be serious and productive. Score one for substance.

But the other one that he touted is the Select Sub-committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, chaired by MAGA stalwart Jim Jordan (R-OH). As Chairman Burgess described it, the mission of this subcommittee is “to fully investigate the Biden-Harris administration’s assault on the constitutional rights of American Citizens.” One could hardly imagine a description of its activities more self-evidently performative.

Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA), struck a notably contrasting tone. Recalling the 116th Congress, when Democrats were in the majority with a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in the Senate, he pointed out that Democrats on the Rules Committee then had spent months engaging members and vetting ideas to make the committee work better. Acknowledging that “no party has a monopoly on good ideas,” the result was a Rules Package that reflected proposals with bipartisan support.

Mr. McGovern concluded by expressing his hope that, no matter which party prevails in November, the Rules Committee of the 119th Congress will carry forward a similar spirit. Willingness to work together, he said, is a necessary part of insuring a well-functioning House--one that works for the American people.

Not surprisingly, the contrasting sentiments of Mr. McGovern and Mr. Burgess were generally predictive of the kind of suggestions offered by Democratic and Republican Members.

All five Democrats who testified put forward proposals designed to either foster bipartisan cooperation or support changes that would benefit the entire House membership, regardless of party affiliations.
Among them were such ideas as holding bipartisan retreats where members of both parties could meet together informally; allowing proxy voting for members who are pregnant or have recently given birth; and allowing members with national security responsibilities to have staff members who also have the highest level of security clearance.
And Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) had an intriguing idea about how to improve a parliamentary procedure that briefly held the public’s attention last Spring: the Discharge Petition. This is a rarely used method of bypassing the Rules Committee when a bill has broad-based support. Mr. Foster believes that members should be allowed to sign-on anonymously while signatures are being gathered. This would protect signers from party retaliation during the process, and thereby increase the likelihood that bills with bipartisan support could pass even if opposed by the more extreme factions of either party.
On the other hand, of the five Republicans testifying, three proposed changes to Standing Rules that were clearly intended to further conservative priorities. Notably, all three are serving their first term in office and their inexperience was apparent. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) wants to require that all new legislation have a “sunset” provision, thereby requiring periodic review and re-authorization. Oblivious to the predictable effect that such a requirement would have—quickly clogging the legislative calendar with renewal bills—Ms. Hageman’s presentation was sprinkled with far-right references like “social media censorship of conservative speech” and the “Russia collusion hoax.” Freshman Representative Rudy Yakym (R-IN) proposed severely limiting the flexibility of appropriation committees to allocate spending. And newcomer Andy Ogles (R-TN) argued for retaining all the MAGA-dictated rules of the current Congress.
The only proposals from the Republican side meant to be genuinely conducive to operational improvement of the House came from two unexpected sources: Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Virginia Foxx (R-NC). Both Mr. Griffith and Ms. Foxx are ultra-conservatives from solidly Republican districts, and they are generally identified with the far-right wing of the GOP. But as senior party members whose terms far pre-date the rise of MAGA extremism, both are also deeply committed to the House as an institution. For them an invitation to suggest ways to make it function better were seen as an opportunity to think beyond partisan advantage.
Rep. Griffith put forward five narrowly focused changes, the most far-reaching of which would be strictly proportional representation of each party on House Committees. Common practice now is for the majority party to have significantly more members in committee than the minority. Mr. Griffith argues that proportional allocation of voting strength would be more fair, encouraging more compromise and incentivizing the formation of temporary bipartisan alliances. (A more cynical interpretation is that such a move would dilute the power of Democrats if, as many expect, they regain the majority after the election.)
But it is Ms. Foxx’s proposal that, if adopted, could be of greatest historical significance. Recalling the six-day period in January 2023 when there was no Speaker of the House, Ms. Foxx points out that it is usual practice for the Speaker to administer the oath of office to House members. So questions have arisen regarding the official status of members-elect during that time.
Many liberal/progressives have also noted this ambiguity, and online speculation about possible ill-motivated scenarios has flourished on the left for some time. Her solution is elegant in its simplicity:
When the House convenes on January 3, its first order of business—even before the election of Speaker—should be for all members-elect to submit signed “Oath of Office” cards. This would not preclude a public ceremony affirming their oath after the Speaker is elected, but it would quell any doubt about members’ status at the start. As Rep Foxx correctly notes:

“The 20th amendment to the Constitution states that the terms of Representatives shall begin on January 3 at noon.
. . . The removal of uncertainty about when the powers of office begin would strengthen this institution for future generations.”

There is probably no issue on which Rep. Foxx is in agreement with members of this network. But she and Mr. Griffith should be recognized as among those who share our commitment to “strengthen this institution for future generations.”

A rare opportunity to flip this GOP House Seat

Regular readers of Feathers of Hope posts already know that we are robustly supporting Kristin Lyerly’s candidacy in Wisconsin’s 8th district. Because the district has had only one Democratic Representative this century (Steve Kagen, 2007-2011), this race does not usually show up on various lists of potentially competitive districts. But the contest this year is dramatically different from what it has been in the past.

The seat has been vacant since April, when Mike Gallagher who had held the seat since 2017 resigned from Congress that month in a very public display of disgust with the antics of the MAGA faction. The primary election to nominate candidates to succeed Rep. Gallagher was held on August 13.

Had Republicans nominated either Andre Jacque or Richard Roth, two experienced mainstream State legislators, it’s likely the seat would have remained safely Republican. But in a 3-way primary race with Tony Wied, a Trump-endorsed MAGA candidate, Mr. Jacque and Mr. Roth split the moderate vote. The result was a victory for Mr. Wied with support from only 40% of the Republican electorate. He has no experience in public service, and recently sold his chain of gas stations to help finance the campaign.

Dr. Kristin Lyerly presents to voters in the usually moderate Republican 8th district a chance to reject MAGA extremism. An OB-GYN, Dr. Lyerly is a pro-choice activist whose lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin restored abortion rights in that State following the Supreme Court’s overruling of Roe v. Wade.

So the choice is either a MAGA extremist who has no apparent qualifications for the office, or an accomplished physician/pro-choice activist with a history of service to the community. Given those alternatives, there’s a good chance the mainstream Republicans in District 8 who did not support Mr. Wied in the primary may not vote for him in November. That makes this an unexpected opportunity for Democrats.

Dr. Lyerly noted the shifting political environment of the district when announcing her candidacy six months ago:

“As things have changed, as division has grown and as MAGA extremism has become more hostile and more extreme, the people of northeastern Wisconsin are not resonating with what’s happening with their party, and even people who identify as conservatives and Republicans don’t feel like their party is their party anymore. That creates a path, even in a +16 R district, for someone like me, who grew up in the district, who voted Republican as a young person, who is Catholic, who has conversations with regular people.”

During their debate last month, Tony Wied showed himself to be an affable but fundamentally shallow candidate. As a prospective successor to the erudite Mike Gallagher who holds a PhD and 3 Master’s degrees, Mr. Weid is woefully inadequate.

Betraying a lack of familiarity with policy details, he repeatedly cited “excessive government spending” in answer to questions about housing costs, health care outcomes, tax proposals, cost of college and social security. On abortion, he echoed Donald Trump’s line about leaving it up to the States. But when asked specifically what restrictions he would favor in Wisconsin, he refused to answer, weakly pleading that he’s running for federal office, not for a State legislature seat.

Dr. Lyerly, on the other hand, answered moderators questions directly and without deflection, often pointing to specific policy proposals. And she twice mentioned “the people who pull my opponent’s strings,” a reference needing no further explanation.

To learn more about Kristin Lyerly, go here: Meet the Candidate

To help support Kristin Lyerly’s campaign, visit her website: www.KristinForWisconsin.com

This is a network of ordinary citizens. In a democracy, we exercise our power by raising our voices. To be silent is to be powerless.