We all know versions of them. Friends and relatives complain incessantly and repeatedly about topics like job woes and their troubled romantic relationships. But they then rebuff suggestions offered for ways to fix their problems that might involve tough trade-offs or sacrifices, like finding a new job or breaking up with their significant others.
A Capitol Hill version has been playing out in the Senate for nine months. Using the Senate’s “hold” procedures, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has been single-handedly blocking consideration of military promotions in protest of the Pentagon’s abortion policy. Colleagues are fuming at the crusade by Tuberville, elected to the Senate in 2020 after a college football career that included leading teams at Auburn, the University of Cincinnati, the University of Mississippi, and Texas Tech.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SMITHSONIAN GIANT PANDA EXHIBIT FOLLOWING BEARS' DEPARTURE?
Hundreds of military officers remain blocked, with only a few nominees for top positions, by President Joe Biden, getting through. And only then when senators have taken the time-consuming step of voting on them individually rather than the usual way as a bloc.
The Senate’s “hold” tradition gives Tuberville wide latitude to continue his nominations blockade. A hold is supposed to be a personal courtesy among senators but is often abused. In this case, Tuberville objects to the Biden administration Pentagon policy that reimburses military personnel for travel to another state for an abortion because many states have banned the procedure.
Senate Republicans were initially relatively quiet about Tuberville’s hold tactics. But GOP senators are now joining Democrats in lambasting him, arguing he’s damaging military readiness, hindering officer retention, and upending the lives of American military families.
On Nov. 1, five Republican senators, in floor speeches, urged him to drop the holds.
“I am a pro-life woman. I am also a veteran and a combat veteran,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who served in the Army and Iowa Army National Guard. “I continue to fight for life — in ways that make sense.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), a Marine Corps Reserve colonel, declared himself, in obvious anger, at Tuberville, “really frustrated” and called the Alabama senator “100% wrong.”
But what these Republican senators didn’t do, like their Democratic colleagues for the better part of a year, was the one thing that could actually end Tuberville’s parliamentary blockade and get nominees confirmed, which would be to change Senate rules. Lawmakers can amend Senate rules on a simple majority vote — and with Democrats currently holding a 51-49 edge, they have the numbers to do so — but won’t.
It's not hard to see why. Lawmakers in both parties might one day want to exercise the privilege of bogging down the Senate themselves for their favorite causes. But their complaints, like those of the friend and relative yammering on about their terrible boss or bad boyfriend, wear thin since the people with the agency to make a change — in this case, senators — actively choose not to. They hope instead their screams to the media about Tuberville’s delaying tactics will earn news coverage instead of their unwillingness to change the rules that enable him.
Paycheck Propaganda in the ‘People’s House’
Less-than-transparent lawmaker tactics are, of course, not unique to the Senate. In the House, where Republicans hold a narrow majority, both parties have been jockeying for advantage in the public relations fight over a potential government shutdown since a government funding agreement is proving elusive between new House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), the Democratic-majority Senate, and the Biden White House.
In the “People’s House,” as lawmakers in the 435-member chamber like to refer to their workplace, lawmaker offices are no doubt warming up press releases declaring righteously that they won’t accept a paycheck if there’s a government shutdown.
It’s a long-standing populist declaration of solidarity with beleaguered taxpayers but one that’s wholly a piece of political propaganda and inconsistent with the Constitution’s 27th Amendment.
Lawmakers, again of both parties, know this, as their bills to freeze congressional salaries during government shutdowns note in the fine print that they have to get paid in full by the end of the congressional session, which in this case is Jan. 2, 2025, the last full day of the 118th Congress.
The 27th Amendment, adopted in 1992 after more than 200 years of languishing in the states, says, “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
Put another way, Congress can’t change its pay during a current session. Any change can only take effect for the next Congress. That’s an important prohibition against lawmakers raising their own pay, currently $174,000 annually for rank-and-file House members and senators with a bit more for leaders. For decades, members of Congress, in the dead of night and particularly in the final days of sessions, would approve pay increases that were retroactive. Anger over this backdoor lawmaker pay raises bubbled up to a point in the late 1980s and 1990s. At that point, states moved to adopt the long-dormant 27th Amendment on May 7, 1992.
But the pay issue cuts both ways since members of Congress can’t raise their own pay during this session of Congress, nor can they cut it. But you wouldn’t know that with legislation to freeze lawmaker pay during government shutdowns.
“Last week, Representative John Curtis reintroduced his bill, the No Work, No Pay Act, prohibiting Members of Congress from being paid during a government shutdown,” the Utah Republican said in a Sept. 26 press release that’s typical of the genre.
Here’s a similar take from Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), on Sept. 20, with a government shutdown looming and in what turned out to be the waning days of Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) nine-month House speakership.
“Today, U.S. Representative Angie Craig introduced the My Constituents Cannot Afford Rebellious Tantrums, Handle Your (MCCARTHY) Shutdown Act to withhold pay for Members of Congress in the case of a federal government shutdown,” the Minnesota Democrat said in a press release.
The proposal calls for lawmaker pay to be held in escrow for the duration of a government shutdown. But eagle-eyed readers of her proposal can point to Section 3, Clause (b) of the legislation, which acknowledges the constitutional prohibition against cutting lawmaker pay in the same session of Congress:
“In order to ensure that this section is carried out in a manner that shall not vary the compensation of Senators or Representatives in violation of the twenty-seventh article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the payroll administrator of a House of Congress shall release for payments to Members of that House of Congress any amounts remaining in any escrow account under this section on the last day of the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
This means that even if a government shutdown lasted through the end of this Congress, just after New Year’s Day 2025, senators and House members would get a lump sum of their held payments stretching back many months. They would have taken a financial hit in the short term but with the knowledge that their remaining salary from the two-year term to which they were elected was waiting for them. And that’s assuming the House’s chief administrative officer could even hold off on paying lawmakers temporarily, which is an open question.
That won’t stop House members from touting these proposals if another government shutdown looms any more than senators will continue to rail against Tuberville’s “hold” tactics without moving to change the rules and end the blockade. It’s all the kind of thing that would sound familiar to the friend or relative you’ve heard complaining ad nauseam without taking action to fix their problems.