Electing officers of the House of Representatives.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hres/1
Last Updated: January 23, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

ID: M001136

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

January 3, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Kabuki Theater" brought to you by the esteemed members of the House of Representatives. Let's dissect this masterpiece, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Ah, the riveting task of electing officers of the House of Representatives! Because, clearly, the most pressing issue facing our nation is who gets to wear the fancy hat and carry the big stick in the House. The main purpose of HRES 1 is to anoint Kevin McCumber, William McFarland, and Catherine Szpindor as the new Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer, respectively. Wow, I can barely contain my excitement.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Oh boy, this is where it gets juicy! The bill resolves (read: rubber-stamps) the selection of these three individuals, because who needs actual debate or scrutiny when you've got a predetermined outcome? It's not like they're going to make any meaningful decisions that might impact the country. This is just a ceremonial exercise in self-aggrandizement.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The only stakeholders here are the politicians themselves, who get to pat each other on the back and pretend they're doing something important. The actual citizens of this great nation? Ha! They're just pawns in this game of bureaucratic musical chairs.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zilch. Zero. Zip. This bill is a non-event, a meaningless exercise in congressional navel-gazing. It's a symptom of the deeper disease: politicians' insatiable desire for power and prestige, coupled with their utter disconnection from the people they supposedly serve.

Diagnosis: Acute Case of Congressional Narcissism, complicated by Chronic Incompetence and Terminal Self-Importance. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism, a strong stomach, and a willingness to call out these charlatans for what they are – self-serving, power-hungry, and completely out of touch with reality.

In conclusion, HRES 1 is a masterclass in legislative theater, designed to distract from the real issues plaguing our nation. It's a bill that says, "Hey, look over here! We're doing something important!" while actually accomplishing nothing. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to make even the most mundane tasks seem like an exercise in futility.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties Transportation & Infrastructure National Security & Intelligence Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Small Business & Entrepreneurship State & Local Government Affairs Government Operations & Accountability Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$110,200
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$6,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$104,200

No PAC contributions found

1
THE CHICKASAW NATION
2 transactions
$2,000
2
A & ALL WASTE LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
4
SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
5
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
BANKE, BARBARA R.
2 transactions
$9,900
2
SAMONA, MAZIN
1 transaction
$6,600
3
ALKHAFAJI, AMMAR
1 transaction
$6,600
4
YALDO, RUDI
1 transaction
$6,600
5
WENZEL, TODD
1 transaction
$6,600
6
DEVOS, BETSY
2 transactions
$6,600
7
DEVOS, DANIEL G.
2 transactions
$6,600
8
MAKI, BRETT
1 transaction
$5,000
9
MCCAUSLAND, PETER
1 transaction
$5,000
10
KELLO, LEILA
1 transaction
$5,000
11
MANNA, MARTIN MR.
1 transaction
$5,000
12
TIGNANELLI, JOSEPH R.
1 transaction
$5,000
13
SEIDEL, DAVID
1 transaction
$3,300
14
T, TODD
1 transaction
$3,300
15
STAMPER, PAULINE MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
16
WENZEL, TRACY
1 transaction
$3,300
17
BROWNELL, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$3,300
18
BARRIS, PETER
1 transaction
$3,300
19
BERNSTEIN, JOSHUA B
1 transaction
$3,300
20
BOTEIN, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$3,300
21
CURLEY, MAUREEN
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 27 nodes and 30 connections

Total contributions: $110,200

Top Donors - Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs21 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 50.4%
Pages: 898-900

— 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner. — 867 — Federal Election Commission ENDNOTES 1. 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq. 2. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1). 3. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(c) and (d). 4. Bradley A. Smith and Stephen M. Hoersting, “A Toothless Anaconda: Innovation, Impotence and Overenforcement at the Federal Election Commission,” 1 Election Law Journal 2 (2002), p. 162. 5. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(a)(2). 6. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(a)(1). 7. Former Commissioner Steven Walther (2006–2022) was listed nominally as an independent but he was recommended to President George W. Bush for nomination by former Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D) and almost always voted in line with the Democrat commissioners on the FEC. 8. Hans von Spakovsky served as a commissioner from 2006 to 2007 in a recess appointment. While no other nominee has been rejected by the Senate, the tradition of bipartisan voice vote confirmation has largely ended. Two Republican nominees—Allen Dickerson and Sean Cooksey—were confirmed on party-line votes in 2020. And one Democrat—Dara Lindenbaum—was confirmed with the support of only six Republican senators in 2022. 9. The term of the 6th Commissioner, Dara Lindenbaum (D), will expire on April 30, 2027. 10. 52 U.S.C. § 30107(a)(6). 11. “Statement of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and James E. ‘Trey’ Trainor, III Regarding Concluded Enforcement Matters,” Federal Election Commission (May 13, 2022), https://www. fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Redacted_Statement_Regarding_Concluded_Matters_13_ May_2022_Redacted.pdf. 12. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014). 13. It should be noted, however, that the constitutional authority of a President to, among other things, remove appointees and direct the actions of independent agencies is a hotly contested and increasingly litigated issue. See Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010); Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020); and Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021). 14. H.R. 1, 117th Cong. (2021–2022). 15. Bradley A. Smith and Stephen M. Hoersting, “A Toothless Anaconda: Innovation, Impotence and Overenforcement at the Federal Election Commission,” 1 Election Law Journal 2 (2002), p. 171. 16. Id.

Introduction

Low 50.4%
Pages: 30-32

— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies

Introduction

Low 50.4%
Pages: 30-32

— xxix — Contributors Marlo Lewis, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ben Lieberman, Competitive Enterprise Institute John Ligon Evelyn Lim, American Cornerstone Institute Mario Loyola, Competitive Enterprise Institute John G. Malcolm, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Masterman, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC Earl Matthews, The Vandenberg Coalition Dan Mauler, Heritage Action for America Drew McCall, American Cornerstone Institute Trent McCotter, Boyden Gray & Associates Micah Meadowcroft, The American Conservative Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Frank Mermoud, Orpheus International Mark Miller, Office of Governor Kristi Noem Cleta Mitchell, Conservative Partnership Institute Kevin E. Moley Caitlin Moon, American Center for Law & Justice Clare Morell, Ethics and Public Policy Center Mark Morgan, The Heritage Foundation Hunter Morgen, American Cornerstone Institute Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center Jonathan Moy, The Heritage Foundation Iain Murray, Competitive Enterprise Institute Ryan Nabil, National Taxpayers Union Michael Nasi, Jackson Walker LLP Lucien Niemeyer, The Niemeyer Group, LLC Nazak Nikakhtar Milan “Mitch” Nikolich Matt O’Brien, Immigration Reform Law Institute Caleb Orr, Boyden Gray & Associates Michael Pack Leah Pedersen Michael Pillsbury, The Heritage Foundation Patrick Pizzella, Leadership Institute Robert Poole, Reason Foundation Christopher B. Porter Kevin Preskenis, Allymar Health Solutions Pam Pryor, National Committee for Religious Freedom Thomas Pyle, Institute for Energy Research John Ratcliffe, American Global Strategies — xxx — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Paul Ray, The Heritage Foundation Joseph Reddan, Flexilis Forestry, LLC Jay W. Richards, The Heritage Foundation Jordan Richardson, Heise Suarez Melville, P.A. Jason Richwine, Center for Immigration Studies Shaun Rieley, The American Conservative Lora Ries, The Heritage Foundation Leo Rios Mark Robeck, Energy Evolution Consulting LLC James Rockas, ACLJ Action Mark Royce, NOVA-Annandale College Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal Foundation William Ruger, American Institute for Economic Research Austin Ruse, Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) Brent D. Sadler, The Heritage Foundation Alexander William Salter, Texas Tech University Jon Sanders, John Locke Foundation Carla Sands, America First Policy Institute Robby Stephany Saunders, Coalition for a Prosperous America David Sauve Brett D. Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, The Heritage Foundation Matt Schuck, American Cornerstone Institute Justin Schwab, CGCN Law Jon Schweppe, American Principles Project Marc Scribner, Reason Foundation Darin Selnick, Selnick Consulting Josh Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance Matt Sharp, Alliance Defending Freedom Judy Shelton, Independent Institute Nathan Simington Loren Smith, Skyline Policy Risk Group Zack Smith, The Heritage Foundation Jack Spencer, The Heritage Foundation Adrienne Spero, U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Thomas W. Spoehr, The Heritage Foundation Peter St Onge, The Heritage Foundation Chris Stanley, Functional Government Initiative Paula M. Stannard Parker Stathatos, Texas Public Policy Foundation William Steiger, Independent Consultant

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.