Lawmakers demand changes to House censure rules after 'playground nonsense' embroils Congress
House lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are erupting in frustration after a week full of political bomb-throwing via a congressional procedure that’s traditionally only saved for the most egregious of fouls.
The last five days have marked the first week House lawmakers have all been in D.C. together since the 43-day government shutdown began on Oct. 1. And while most of them were anxious to get to work, the chamber was instead forced to reckon with a series of censure threats and forced House-wide votes on rebuking their colleagues via a mechanism called a privileged resolution.
"This is ridiculous playground nonsense," Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., said. "Personally, I'm tired of members of Congress using the chamber as their own personal playground to get attention. People have done some egregious things. But I’ve just had enough of this back and forth nonsense."
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., called the slew of censures and privileged resolutions "the biggest load of bulls---" and called for the system to be reformed so that one lawmaker’s wishes were not enough to disrupt the entire House floor.
NANCY MACE TO FORCE CENSURE VOTE AGAINST FELLOW HOUSE REPUBLICAN
"I mean, if somebody warrants a censure and/or expulsion, it should truly be driven by the consensus of the body and not some individual going on their own crusade to get attention or make a name," Lawler said.
One lawmaker, granted anonymity to discuss the development, said they were even worried the tool could now be misused as an election ploy.
"The majority could just [censure] anybody in a tight race. And you don't want this process to become part of election games and s---" they said.
Currently, any one lawmaker can introduce a censure resolution against another. Both Republicans and Democrats have also wielded a mechanism known as a "privileged resolution" three times this week to force an immediate vote on rebuking a colleague — out of five total threats to do so.
It spurred conversations by House lawmakers on how to change those rules, including one bipartisan proposal that would raise the threshold to censure someone from a simple majority vote to 60% of the chamber.
Some experts fear that change may do little to change the political incentives in place now, however.
"Increasing the threshold is useful, but I don’t know that it will deter its use," Jim Curry, professor of political science at the University of Utah, said. "You still get to have this moment of ‘I have brought a censure resolution against so-and-so, and the House will vote on it because I was brave.’ That doesn’t change that incentive for individual members of Congress to use it to grab headlines."
In its current state, lawmakers voiced concern that censures had been used primarily in a retaliatory manner.
"Eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, and we shouldn't use the House floor to litigate personal grievances, or even legitimate ones that should go through the proper due process," Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., said. "If someone is found to have committed a violation, and they receive their day in court, or the equivalent of it, then they should be held accountable. But this rush to get a headline, I think it's childish."
Lawmakers blamed a variety of motivations for the surge in House floor drama, from political angst to a desire for attention.
Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital, "I think there's a lot of pent-up frustration after the Democratic shutdown of over 40 days. And we all want to get moving on important issues, whether it be the cost of materials that went up during the Biden years, and, of course, how we handle this healthcare issue. And unfortunately, some people want to use some of these procedures to settle scores."
"Some of these folks are running for office and looking for footage to show their supporters or donors that they're doing something, and some of the media has to own this as well, because you guys cover this stupid s---. It's clickbait. It’s lame," Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said.
DEMOCRAT FOUND TEXTING JEFFREY EPSTEIN FACES HOUSE CENSURE, COMMITTEE REMOVAL THREATS
A handful of members said they believed the chamber would be better served by increased use of the House Ethics Committee, the body primarily charged with reviewing possible lawmaker misconduct.
Committee Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., believes the Ethics Committee can help narrow down which censures are appropriate "so that they can get a clearer picture of the conduct and then be able to have a more informed opinion."
He said this week’s slew of censures "goes against the historical norm."
Rep. Glenn Ivey, D-Md., who also sits on the Ethics Committee, noted that the chamber has other means to police behavior that fall somewhere between a censure and a full-blown Ethics Committee investigation. He added the speaker of the House could strip members of committee assignments.
"The complaint about the ethics committee is we take too long and, OK, I get that. But I think part of what you’re hearing is that all these votes come to the floor and a lot of people don’t even know what the issue is or anything."
Other members expressed frustration that the chamber had spent a significant amount of time on the censures, diverting time and attention away from more pressing legislative matters.
"Issues of affordability are what I'm focused on. And so every time we were kind of veering off into other areas, it frustrates me that we're not focusing on the issues that were elected to deal with," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.
Rep. Brad Knott, R-N.C., said, "I think that we would all do a little bit better to focus on the broader issues that the American people want us to focus on."
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Fox Digital he would be open to reforms to the tool.
"I've had members from across the conference bringing me their thoughts and ideas on that, and we'll be going through that in a deliberative fashion to figure out what makes the most sense," he said.