Civic Register
| 4.30.21

Causes Q&A: Your Questions Answered - April 2021

Join us and spread the word to your community

The month of April is drawing to a close, which means it’s time for us to dig into the monthly mailbag to answer some of your questions about bills and Congress! In keeping with the routine, you can submit questions we'll answer at the end of May here, but in the meantime let's dive into those questions:

Has a bill ever been submitted to limit the terms of Congress members? And if yes, what progress did the bill make, if any. ― B.R.

  • While the U.S. president and many governors are subject to term limits, members of Congress are not. In each session of Congress there are typically several bills to enact term limits introduced by lawmakers in the House and Senate. So far in the 117th Congress there have been four term limits bills introduced. 
  • Term limits proposals tend to vary in the number of terms House members (who serve two year terms) and senators (six year terms), although most usually set the limit between three and six House terms and two or three Senate terms. Some term limits bills grandfather current lawmakers from the cap, while others would subject them to it.
  • Bills to enact term limits are ordinarily formatted as constitutional amendments because of a 1995 Supreme Court case known as U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, which struck down term limits 23 states had imposed on members of Congress with a 5-4 ruling (current Justice Stephen Breyer was in the majority while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented).
  • It appears that there has only been one vote in Congress on the issue of term limits in recent decades. During the 104th Congress in 1995, the House voted on a constitutional amendment to enact term limits which failed to get the two-thirds majority required on a 227-204 vote. The vote was largely along party-lines as most Republicans were in favor 189-40 and Democrats were mostly opposed 38-163. 

Is there any momentum around a Balanced Budget Amendment/Debt Control? ― Brandon

  • Much like a constitutional amendment to impose term limits, members of Congress typically introduce a handful of proposals in each Congress to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution. Democrats have historically opposed BBA measures, so it’s unlikely to get a vote in the House during this Congress, although fiscally conservative senators may call for a vote on a BBA proposal in the amendment process in the Senate.
  • While there has been a debate over adopting a BBA since the first half of the 20th century, the most recent House vote on a BBA proposal came just three years ago in April 2018, which failed to meet the two-thirds majority threshold on a 233-184 vote. The vote broke largely along party-lines with Republicans in favor 226-6 and Democrats opposed 7-178. 
  • During the 116th Congress, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) forced a vote on his Cut, Cap, and Balance Amendment during consideration of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which was rejected 23-70 in August 2019.
  • Debt control as an issue comes up regularly when the federal government approaches the debt limit, or lawmakers propose measures to reign in deficits through spending cuts and entitlement reforms or tax hikes. While the Treasury Dept. can use accounting tools known as “extraordinary measures” to extend the debt limit, those can only delay matters for a few months, and eventually Congress has to vote to lift the debt limit.
  • The next debt limit deadline is expected to occur this year, likely in the late summer or early fall depending on federal spending patterns in the meantime. Given that federal spending (and the deficit) hit an all-time high last year due to the surge of pandemic-related spending, it’s likely there will be renewed focus on the debt limit as it approaches due to concern about the national debt.

What’s the current status of the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act? And any idea of how soon it will be voted on? ― Kenneth

How many members have ever been expelled for violating their Oath of Office? ― Ken

  • The Congressional Research Service found that throughout U.S. history there have been 15 senators and five House members expelled for misconduct. 
  • Of the 20 total expulsions, all but three were related to disloyalty to the Union during the Civil War. One was retroactively rescinded by Congress, the 1861 expulsion of Sen. William Sebastian (D-AR). The Arkansas Historical Review noted Sebastian “did not resign, as did all the other southern senators save Andrew Johnson, but remained a melancholy and helpless spectator of events” until he was expelled on suspicion of supporting the Confederacy. He died in 1865, and the Senate posthumously revoked his expulsion in 1877 and paid compensation to his children.
  • The non-Civil War related expulsions were of Sen. William Blount (Dem-Rep-TN) in 1797 for disloyalty to the U.S. after he conspired with the British to seize Spanish territories in Florida and Louisiana; Rep. Michael “Ozzie” Myers (D-PA) in 1980 for bribery, conspiracy, and violations of the Travel Act related to the Abscam scandal (he was charged with federal election fraud in 2020 with allegedly conspiring with a Philadelphia elections judge to stuff ballot boxes in 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections); and Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) in 2002 for illegal gratuity, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, defrauding the government, racketeering, and tax evasion after he used campaign funds for personal use (he later launched an unsuccessful run for Congress while serving a prison sentence).

Why aren't members of Congress required to hold in-person town hall events? Why does Congress make 4 times more than the average American, and yet get vast amounts of vacation and time off? ― Brian

  • It’s up to lawmakers to decide how they want to engage with their constituents, whether through in-person town hall events, video conferences, or telephone calls. While they may receive some guidance from party leaders or colleagues on best practices, it’s ultimately up to the lawmaker and their constituents, who can register their opinion on the lawmaker’s service at the ballot box.
  • Members of Congress typically use the “district work periods” when no floor business is scheduled to consider issues, engage with constituents, raise money, and, yes, take vacations. 
  • Both chambers of Congress typically take a two-week break from floor work in the spring, a four-to-five week break through August until Labor Day, and conclude the work session for the year in mid-December barring changes needed to address pressing legislative issues. Similarly, the weeks of Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Thanksgiving are designated as district work periods most years. 
  • While the schedule is variable, that general schedule allows members to plan on being in D.C. for two-to-four consecutive weeks, which are then broken up by district work periods.
  • On the issue of congressional salaries, members of Congress were paid only on a per diem basis (i.e. they received a daily stipend rather than a salary) until 1855 when the first salary was established at $3,000 (or $82,318 in 2019 dollars). 
  • The salary for a rank-and-file member of Congress has been $174,000 annually since the last pay raise in 2009, as the House Republican majority that began in 2010 opposed pay raises and subsequent Congresses haven’t mustered the political will to vote to raise lawmaker pay.
  • The amount of time that has elapsed since the last pay raise has led some members of Congress to call for a pay raise. In fact, just this week House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) sent a letter urging committee chairs to include a pay raise for members and staff in the fiscal year 2022 appropriations packages.
  • Under the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, any change (be it an increase or decrease) in the pay rate of members of Congress cannot take effect until the beginning of the next Congress. This is intended to prevent lawmakers from voting to give themselves a raise at the expense of taxpayers. That means if the latest push to raise salaries for members of Congress succeeds it will not take effect until January 2023.

What happened to the STABLE GENIUS Act introduced by Rep. Brendan Boyle in 2018 and 2019? ― Vanguard

  • As you noted, the bill was referred to subcommittees when it was introduced in the 115th Congress in 2018 and the 116th Congress in 2019, but it stalled in committee and never advanced. This is the same fate experienced by the vast majority of bills and resolutions introduced in Congress, and while the reasons may vary, ultimately it’s because the House leadership didn’t think it merited the floor time.
  • So far, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) hasn’t reintroduced the Standardizing Testing and Accountability Before Large Elections Giving Electors Necessary Information for Unobstructed Selection (STABLE GENIUS) Act in the 117th Congress. If it’s reintroduced and brought to the floor, we’ll be sure to summarize it!
  • A closing note: you can find the May mailbag here, so feel free to ask more questions and we’ll try to address them next month!


— Eric Revell

  • 25.9k
    Frank_001
    05/17/2021

    To Causes Admin.: Please give serious consideration to implementing an Issue Search Function in addition to News, Bills, Profiles, and Lawmakers. We frequently see issues arise over and over. It would be very helpful to be able to revisit comments on those issues. Thanks for your consideration!

  • 7,967
    larubia
    05/11/2021

    So, is the attack on Liz Cheney the beginning of the end for the Republican Party or just sign of spineless Congresspersons serving up more fealty to tRump?

  • 41.9k
    jimK
    05/11/2021

    larubia: I know the answer to your question regarding the treatment of Liz Cheney. The answer is: BOTH.

  • 7,967
    larubia
    05/05/2021

    Do the current bans on tRump on platforms like Facebook & Twitter become null & void if he runs in 2024? Or does he get equal time???

  • 472
    Alice
    05/03/2021

    Why is it all I hear is Police accountability? Why do we not hear civilian accountability? Are we to just allow these people free will to break any laws they wish and to not have any consequences? If they obeyed the law they wouldn't be in trouble. If they really want to defund the police then the next time someone mugs them or assaults them then tell them don't call the police for help leave them alone and let them help the people who respect them and want them around and believe they are paid way too little for the risks they take!

  • 2,580
    NoHedges
    05/02/2021

    A decision and direction will need to be established soon. Do we want the moral high ground or do we want to win more elections and help lift more Americans, including minorities, out of poverty? If the answer is the latter, then we must start tailoring our message accordingly. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/white-backlash-racial-justice-kalla-english-race-class-narrative.html “Should Democrats work to redress racial oppression and inequality?” is a question of values. “If Democrats emphasize that progressive economic policies redress racial inequality, will that make it easier or harder for them to win elections and then pass those policies?” is a question of fact. If one posits that a “race-silent” message will enable the Democratic Party to secure power and increase funding for affordable housing, Medicaid, and K-12 education in disadvantaged districts — while foregrounding race will enable Republicans to win power and defund those public goods — then advocating for a “race-silent” message is, in practice, “working for racial justice for communities of color.”

  • 741
    John
    05/02/2021

    I just want to point out Patricia, a math wiz she is! Patricia points out that 50% of the people shot by police are white. If you’re going to go by statistics then 87% of the people that are shot by the police should be white as 13% of America is black. Your own statistics point out what a vapid argument you presented.

  • 48.2k
    Brian
    05/02/2021

    Thanks for answering my question, Causes. As far as I'm concerned, Senator Toomey does not actually meet with constituents, and hasn't had an in-person town hall in a decade. I'd happily vote him out again (didn't work in 2016), but he's going to retire next year. I guess that means he got away with it.

  • 741
    John
    05/01/2021

    This is off-topic but it’s got to be said, Arizona has become a national joke. A bunch of Pardison Nazi Republicans recounting the vote on their own it’s laughable. If the republican party doesn’t rid itself of farcical believing simple minded idiots it will be doomed if it isn’t already. In case these morons haven’t noticed they’ve lost the presidency, they’ve lost the Senate and they’ve lost the house. They are losing America because they’re filling their ranks with losers. What a fantastic concept, let’s keep re-counting the votes over and over until it comes out the way we want it. It’s a pathetic joke. All done at the hands of the party, the republican party the ripped Congress to shreds, help to kill five people, rip the fingers off of policeman, beat policeman with American flags and Trump flags all because they didn’t get what they wanted. Now that’s a great example of democracy – not!

  • 388
    Sharon
    05/01/2021

    I don’t understand why a member of Congress in one breath claims to support the Constitution, and in the next breath opposes HR 1. The Constitution guarantees a “Republican form of government in Article IV, Section 4. “Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “Definition of republic 1.1a(1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government 1b(1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law ( (2): a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government Is the United States a democracy or a republic? One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.” Some people assert that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic The Constitution, in Amendments, goes on to prohibit restraints on the right to vote based on race, color, ir condition of servitude (15th Amendment); sex (19th Amendment); or age so long as a voter is at least 18 (25th Amendment). It seems clear to me that the signatories to the Constitution and the Amendments (3 of 26 Amendments) were intended to guarantee the right to vote, and to command that the right to vote possessed by any citizen - immigrant or otherwise - was not to be “abridged.” The Constitution also confers on the federal government to intervene as necessary to guarantee these rights: “Article 1, Section 4: Elections The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” The gerrymandering and efforts to make voting as difficult and inconvenient as possible that have recently begun by state legislatures are certain to “abridge” voter rights (abridge defined in the Cambridge dictionary as “to reduce someone's freedom, rights, etc.” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/abridge). Some legislatures seek the power to cancel voter rights entirely by essentially erasing them through a new power to ignore election results and choose themselves which candidate the electors in the electoral college are to cast their vote. I see these actions in direct violation of the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly allows Congress to override State legislatures’ enactments about the conduct of elections, although granting States the initial right to direct them: “Article 1, Section 4: Elections The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Therefore, HR 1 with respect to elections is not in violation of the Constitution or the rights of States granted therein. In fact, the Constitution seems to me to command federal intervention because of its guarantee of Republican government which includes democratic elections and specific mandates that voters’ rights not be curtailed. The text of the Constitution quoted here is found at: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full-text

  • 160
    Justin
    05/01/2021

    Why do you report on instances where the police officer shoots a black person, but you do not report about instances where the policeman is shot or the cop shoots a white person?

  • 7,796
    PLZ
    05/01/2021

    https://www.termlimits.com/donate/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=408efbc5-d0b1-4d9f-9a81-bdd92103f2a1 We need Term Limits to stop these corrupt politicians!

  • 246
    Robert
    05/01/2021

    Some of the questions that you ask are totally inane who writes them

  • 7,796
    PLZ
    04/30/2021

    On Term limits, it would helpful right now if you wrote or called your (state’s) House Representative and told them why you'd like them to co-sponsor HR 57 on term limits. Obviously Congress will NEVER pass such a bill, so we need to have each state request to participate. You will to get signatures using a petition. If enough states request Term Limits, there’s nothing that Congress can do.

  • 291
    Stephanie
    05/01/2021

    The only question I have is why there's no option to reply to specific commenters here on this forum. Like maybe ask questions or things like that. Thanks Causes!

  • 349
    Judy
    05/01/2021

    Did the politicians found guilty of non-Civil War related expulsions go to prison for their crimes? Also, were they banned from seeking office again?

  • 127
    Debbie
    05/01/2021

    Sounds like we need a complete overhaul!! They don’t listen to us & are completely out of control. What do we have to do yank them out of their seats & throw them out!!!!!!

  • 69
    Patricia
    05/01/2021

    934 civilians killed by police. 50% white

  • 2,915
    BR
    04/30/2021

    Causes: Thank you for responding.