Decades of institutional self-neglect have left Congress dysfunctional and unfit to fulfill its constitutional role as the most consequential branch of government. Government of the people has morphed into government by bureaucrats, by the executive, and by the courts. The decision-making mechanisms of the People’s House are broken.
If you were fortunate enough to be educated in “civics,” you may remember being told of the process by which a bill becomes law. It is introduced by sponsors, assigned to committees, vetted with testimony and amended, referred to the whole body if approved, debated and amended again, passed out, and then sent to the corresponding legislative body if successful.
Known as Regular Order, the process can be tedious, but it has a purpose: to ensure a free, fair process in a lawmaking body where input from all is accepted and the final vote reflects the informed decision of a majority of members.
Well, kids, here’s the bad news. That process doesn’t really exist in today’s Congress. Instead, lawmakers use their authority to exempt themselves from their own rules. A jerry-rigged-substitute process has developed that, in the House, concentrates power in the Speaker’s office.
Meaningful decisions are made almost always at the leadership level. The rank-and-file are simply suits who vote. Representatives write newsletters telling constituents of any pork they’ve been able to score and the issues they are “fighting for” without disclosing how little real influence they have.
Thus, Congress enfeebles itself. It’s well suited to incumbent protection but not for effectiveness as an institution.
The Freedom Caucus, a right-leaning group of Republicans, is determined to change this. They note, for example, Congress hasn’t produced a legitimate budget in decades. Instead, they pass leadership-created “omnibus” bills with little prioritization or accountability, a process that has contributed to our devastating debt.
The Freedom Caucus has taken a lot of guff for their reform efforts. But how can they be faulted for grasping at a rare chance when they have influence? In the last Congress, they were a minority faction in a minority caucus. Now that their votes are needed to elect Kevin McCarthy to the speakership, they are trying to wield their influence usefully.
Their main ask is that the rank-and-file get a voice in the legislative process. Under present rules, for example, no lawmaker is able to introduce an amendment, either in committee or on the floor, in open process. The hoped for solution is to mandate voting on amendments that are supported by at least 10 percent of the members, a move that would greatly open up the legislative process.
Probably the most controversial proposal is to revive the “Motion to Vacate the Chair,” which empowers any member to call for a new speaker election. The rule was in place for 200 years before it was repealed in 2019 by Queen Nancy.
In practice, the rule was rarely invoked, presumably under the ancient dictum that “if you strike the king, you must kill him.” It would make the speakership less autocratic, balancing the power differential between leadership and the rank-and-file.
Pelosi Democrats often wrote significant legislation behind closed doors and then bull rushed it through Congress before legislators had time to read it. The Freedom Caucus members are calling for 120 hours between a bill’s introduction and its passage, which could only be overridden by a two-thirds majority.
Finally, the Freedom Caucus is asking McCarthy to agree to secure majority support from Republican members before bringing legislation to the floor. This too seems reasonable since Americans will rightly hold Republicans accountable for the performance of the House this term.
None of these proposals are outrageous. In fact, by making the legislative process more democratic and transparent, they give Republicans the chance to present themselves as the party of sound governance.
But the Freedom Caucus should not overplay its hand. If Rep. McCarthy is willing to compromise on some of their key demands, they should honor their own principles of majority rule and concur in his election, since it is favored by an overwhelming majority of Republicans.
Both sides should see this is an opportunity for a win-win, the potential kickoff to a new era of constructive change.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Arizona’s congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle didn’t appear too fond of the Democrat-led Congress’ $1.7 trillion, 4,000-page spending bill.
Republicans decried the plan entirely, first noting the Democrats’ last-minute submission of the legislation for review and demand for a vote. They admonished what they considered excessive spending, especially given the nation’s current financial insecurity. Democrats that commented on the spending bill, which were few, were more vocal about the aspects they disliked than the virtues of the package. However, Democrats ultimately voted for the bill.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) declared that the omnibus was an “assault” on the people, separation of powers, and fiscal responsibility. He warned it would devalue the American dollar to “unprecedented levels.”
If passed, this omnibus will devalue our currency to unprecedented levels.
Biggs and representative-elect Eli Crane signed onto a letter led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX-21) urging the Senate GOP to unify their 41 votes to kill the bill.
This slated "omnibus spending bill" is an indefensible assault on the American people.
Biggs said that Republican resistance on the spending bill would allow the incoming Republican-led House to hold the FBI accountable for suppressing free speech online.
If we keep this radical omnibus from passing, my colleagues and I will be able to make adjustments to hold the FBI more accountable.
Just recently it was revealed FBI paid Twitter $3.4M for spying on users making dissenting arguments and jokes.
Biggs also shared commentary from Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) disputing Democrats’ claim that Republicans were holding up the spending bill. Paul reminded the public and press that the Democrat-led Congress, just as with every other Congress, knows the deadline.
Q: Are YOU going to hold up this spending bill? A: Leadership knows the deadlines. It is all on them. THEY fail every year to meet the deadline. Then they blame conservatives for not rubber stamping a $1.7 trillion, 4,000+ page spending bill. pic.twitter.com/I94ITyrAnt
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) said the bill was “America Last” in nature. He criticized Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for prioritizing Ukraine over America.
Gosar listed a litany of real issues facing the country: inflation, declining wages, World War II-era shortages and supply chain issues, record crime levels, a weaponized Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI censorship and political persecution, Big Tech monopoly colluding with the DOJ, Biden family corruption with illegal Ukrainian bribes, record levels of broken families, a transgenderism crisis, failing infrastructure, record low confidence in government, broken elections systems, inept public health systems, COVID-19 vaccine harms, declining military, over $31 trillion in debt.
“Yet the Omnibus bill failed to remedy a single one of these very real problems. Not one. In fact, it rewards the DOJ, the FBI and the failed military leadership with more money and no reforms and no investigations. Not a dime is allocated towards securing our own border,” said Gosar.
More than two months into FY2023 and in the dark hours of the early morning, Congressional appropriators unveiled their egregiously wasteful omnibus spending plan that includes another $45 billion of hardworking American taxpayer dollars to fund a proxy war in Ukraine. (1/15)
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) said the plan was “reckless.” Lesko noted that the country’s interest payments would surpass the entire Department of Defense (DOD) budget on a yearly basis ($742 billion).
Lesko also noted that 63 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
“We cannot continue spending money that we don’t have,” said Lesko.
🚨🚨MUST LISTEN INTERVIEW: I joined @toddstarnes to discuss how I’ll be voting NO on the Democrats' reckless spending package, how the Biden Administration is complicit in cartels' criminal activities at the southern border, and the sham January 6th Committee. pic.twitter.com/KCx80lF1Jz
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) backed the bill, declaring that further funding for Ukraine was a good thing. However, Sinema did break with her former party (she now identifies as an independent) to speak out on border policy within the bill. Sinema reaffirmed dedication on a bipartisan solution with Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) for border legislation.
As AZ Free News reported last week, Sinema has been attempting to broker a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers in exchange for increased border security measures.
Congress continues standing by Ukraine, and I applaud our bipartisan action supporting Ukraine with the funds and resources it needs to defend itself against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked attacks.
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-09) criticized the decision to leave out the Afghan Adjustment Act, legislation to expedite the legal status process for Afghan evacuees. Stanton signaled his support for Ukraine as well.
Congress has failed its duty to protect Afghans who risked their lives for our troops.
With the Afghan Adjustment Act left out of our year-end funding bill, thousands will stay in limbo because of a few Senate Republicans. This is morally inexcusable.https://t.co/XhpSnSupM4
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ-02) had the most favorable view of the spending bill. She championed the legislation as a great increase in funding for Arizona.
As Arizona’s Appropriator, I'm proud of our work on FY23 funding package. My position on committee allowed me to deliver significant victories to AZ
Last gov funding push of my career & we finished strong-highest $$ deliverables in AZ delegation…again!https://t.co/Xz2ytIsRo9
On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee rejected a resolution requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over records on federal agents or assets that encouraged protesters to enter the Capitol on January 6.
The original version of the resolution, introduced by Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) last Friday, focused solely on Ray Epps, an Arizona man and former Oath Keeper leader accused of working as a federal informant. During Wednesday’s hearing, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY-04) amended the resolution to focus on federal involvement.
While Republicans urged transparency concerning Epps’ involvement, Democrats claimed ignorance or avoidance of the topic. Aside from Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08), who called Epps a “poor schmuck” being demonized by his own party, Democrats focused on expressing disdain for Republican characterizations of the January 6 riot.
ICYMI today: @RepThomasMassie amended @RepGosar resolution for DOJ records on #RayEpps , broadened to focus on "agents or assets of federal government who encouraged protesters to enter the Capitol building on January 6." House Judiciary Committee rejected it.
Massie urged the committee to pass the resolution, noting that the Biden administration hasn’t been completely transparent about Epps. He declared that the DOJ’s lack of interest in Epps defied logic, especially since the Biden administration prosecuted all other January 6 rioters and launched a formal committee to investigate the riot.
Massie showed multiple video clips of Epps telling protesters on January 5 and 6 to “go into the Capitol.” Massie stated that Epps is the only person on video telling protestors to go into the Capitol, noting that the first breach of the Capitol grounds occurred directly after Epps whispered into one of the trespasser’s ears.
Massie recounted investigative reporters’ details of the FBI’s action or inaction concerning Epps. This included the Revolver News reports (first and second) that the FBI listed Epps initially on their Most Wanted page for January 6 rioters, but later removed him without explanation. This also included Epoch Times reports (first and second) that Epps was the only protestor that had a premonition of the pipe bombs discovered on January 6. Additionally, this included New York Times reporting on Epps’ alleged text messages to his nephew admitting that he helped people breach the Capitol.
“[Epps’ involvement is] easily proven false if they would release this information. If the federal government would tell us, point-blank, no uncertain terms, under oath, not some staffer, not some statement released on some hearsay, not by leaking it to the New York Times, not by trying to soften the blow by putting things out in the press, just come here and tell us,” said Massie.
Massie rejected the House Select Committee to Investigate January 6 (January 6 Committee) assessment of Epps. In January, the committee revealed that Epps told them that he wasn’t working with or for any law enforcement agency on or before January 6. According to Massie, the committee promised to release a transcript of their interview with Epps. They haven’t.
The Select Committee is aware of unsupported claims that Ray Epps was an FBI informant based on the fact that he was on the FBI Wanted list and then was removed from that list without being charged.
Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-09) remarked that there are different standards of justice for Republicans versus Democrats: former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago documents versus Hillary Clinton’s emails, the months of Black Lives Matter (BLM) riots nationwide in 2020 versus the single afternoon of rioting last January.
“[M]any Americans believe there is a dual standard of justice in the country,” said Bishop. “Nothing reinforces Americans’ sense of a dual standard of justice more than the vehement embrace by Democrats of unequal consequences for like conduct. And it is done all the time.”
Watch the full debate on the resolution below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
As if small business owners haven’t had enough to deal with, now comes word that Congress pulled the rug out from under a major COVID-19 relief program that was supposed to run through the end of 2021.
Instead, many business owners are left scrambling to adjust their business plan with just three weeks left in the year.
The Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) program was approved by Congress in 2020 to allow many small business owners to offset much of the cost of payroll taxes for those employees who were retained despite the pandemic. The program was to run through Jan. 1, 2022, allowing employers to claim credits of up to $7,000 per employee per quarter for all four quarters this year.
But that abruptly changed when President Joe Biden recently signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
According to the White House-supported legislation, the ERTC program came to a halt as of Sept. 30. That retroactive end means business owners who developed their budget based on claiming the credits Congress previously approved for the fourth-quarter will have a rude awakening at tax time.
Restaurants, retail, and professional services businesses are among the industries expected to be hardest hit by ERTC’s early termination, which was not previously publicized by the Biden Administration. It has fallen on business and trade associations to get the word out after the fact, but it is feared the message will be too late for many small businesses.
The National Federal of Independent Businesses is encouraging impacted business owners to notify their U.S. Representatives and Senators in hopes Congress will address the problem by restoring the original end date.
With states still feeling the economic damage done by the COVID-19 pandemic, President Joe Biden signed the “American Rescue Plan Act” to give states billions of federal dollars to help them recover. But there’s a catch: The Act effectively prohibits states that take the money from cutting taxes through 2024. That’s unconstitutional—and the Goldwater Institute is joining one legal challenge to it.
Congress can sometimes put conditions on grants to states, but it can’t take advantage of an emergency to coerce states into giving up control of such an important issue of state policy, and it can’t impose a condition on a grant that has nothing to do with the grant’s purpose. That’s why many state attorneys general have filed federal lawsuits challenging this “Tax Mandate”—and it’s why the Goldwater Institute has filed a brief supporting the state of Ohio’s challenge.
THE TAX MANDATE
A provision in the Act says that states cannot use federal grant money to “directly or indirectly offset” a loss of revenue resulting from a tax cut enacted between March 2021 and the end of 2024. If they do, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury will take the federal money back, up to the amount of revenue the state lost. That appears to mean that states that cut taxes between now and 2024 will have to pay back some or all their grant money.
The Tax Mandate’s defenders say this is just to make sure states actually use federal money for COVID relief. But the Tax Mandate doesn’t actually do that. The Act lists four broad categories of things a state can spend federal grant money on. After states spend the money, they have to report how they spent it to the Treasury Secretary. If the Secretary determines that a state spent money on something that doesn’t fall into one of those categories, she can take that money back.
So if a state receives a grant of, say, $5 billion, it has to show that it spent $5 billion on things the Act allows. If some things it reports weren’t appropriate uses of the money, the Secretary can recoup that portion of the grant. That alone ensures that states spend their federal grants for the purposes Congress intended.
The Tax Mandate, on the other hand, does not help ensure that states spend their grant money properly. Instead, it focuses on whether a state indirectly used federal funds to offset revenue lost as a result of tax cuts. That might make sense if the Act were otherwise designed to deny federal money to states that could afford to pay for their own COVID relief (if they put other policy priorities aside). But the Act doesn’t do that.
