Internal Democratic Fights Come to a Head This Week

At Hill meetings and a Philadelphia retreat, the House minority will debate term limits and an economic message.

Rep. Karen Bass, D-CA, speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill January 13, 2015 in Washington, DC. House Democrats spoke about US President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration. AFP PHOTO/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
National Journal
Jan. 26, 2015, 3 p.m.

In the first weeks of a new Con­gress, House Demo­crats are like an army in re­treat: They’re out­numbered, isol­ated, and di­vided over how — or if — to make a stand.

Even the weath­er is be­ing un­co­oper­at­ive: Later this week, as a bliz­zard en­vel­ops the North­east, they’ll head to Phil­adelphia for ral­ly­ing cries and tough dis­cus­sions about the fu­ture of their party. And be­fore that re­treat, mem­bers will have to ad­dress a grow­ing de­bate over wheth­er the party’s re­luct­ance to im­pose term lim­its on its com­mit­tee lead­ers is stifling op­por­tun­it­ies for the up-and-comers who will define the party’s fu­ture.

Pub­lic de­tails about the re­treat are so far sparse, though Pres­id­ent Obama is slated to ad­dress the caucus Thursday, fol­lowed by Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden the day after. While the gath­er­ing will no doubt fea­ture its share of rah-rah mo­ments, seni­or staffers for both mod­er­ate and pro­gress­ive co­ali­tions with­in the caucus agreed that its sub­stance will cen­ter on the search for a con­sensus eco­nom­ic mes­sage.

“There seems to be a de­bate hap­pen­ing about what kind of eco­nom­ic pop­u­lism House Demo­crats are go­ing to be push­ing this Con­gress,” said one aide to a prom­in­ent lib­er­al mem­ber. The staffer re­ques­ted an­onym­ity to dis­cuss in­tern­al de­bates, com­par­ing mem­bers who want to grow the gross do­mest­ic product and ease reg­u­la­tions with those who seek to raise the min­im­um wage and put curbs on Wall Street. “Those con­ver­sa­tions will hap­pen at the re­treat,” he ad­ded. “Com­ing out of the re­treat, people want there to be a tight defin­i­tion of the things we see as eco­nom­ic pop­u­lism.”

“There’s def­in­itely a siz­able fac­tion that is dis­sat­is­fied with the dir­ec­tion of the mes­saging,” said a mod­er­ate aide who also re­ques­ted an­onym­ity. “A num­ber of those mem­bers are plan­ning to at­tend to make those con­cerns known.”¦ There’s go­ing to be some pretty frank con­ver­sa­tions about the fu­ture dir­ec­tion of the party. It’s growth versus fair­ness.” The staffer said many mem­bers are frus­trated that party lead­er­ship did not take a les­son from the midterm elec­tions in which Demo­crats’ fair­ness-fo­cused mes­sage was drubbed at the polls.

Obama is ex­pec­ted to men­tion trade in his ad­dress, and many Demo­crats have op­posed his re­quest to speed up trade deals by by­passing con­gres­sion­al in­put — an is­sue that di­vides many busi­ness-friendly law­makers from the eco­nom­ic lib­er­als. Some are also con­cerned the White House may be will­ing to cut a deal on tax re­form with Re­pub­lic­ans without con­sult­ing Hill Demo­crats first.

The caucus will head to Phil­adelphia on Wed­nes­day, weath­er per­mit­ting, but Tues­day will likely ex­pose oth­er ten­sions as mem­bers meet to be­gin a dis­cus­sion over term lim­its, led by Rep. Kar­en Bass. Un­like Re­pub­lic­ans, Demo­crats do not lim­it how many years their mem­bers may spend atop com­mit­tees. Young­er mem­bers say that’s cre­ated a lo­g­jam in which prom­ising le­gis­lat­ors find little op­por­tun­ity for ad­vance­ment.

A Bass aide em­phas­ized that the rules meet­ings are not solely a term-lim­its battle, al­though that seems to be the is­sue many mem­bers seem eager to ad­dress. Tues­day’s gath­er­ing will look at the his­tory and reas­ons be­hind caucus rules, fol­lowed by later meet­ings to dis­cuss in­di­vidu­al stat­utes. An­oth­er top­ic ex­pec­ted to come up is proxy vot­ing — an is­sue that ex­ploded in­to the spot­light last Novem­ber when Rep. Tammy Duck­worth, un­able to travel due to her late-stage preg­nancy, was denied a vote in chair­man­ship elec­tions.

The aide did not of­fer a timeline for how long the pro­cess will take, and the term-lim­it is­sue has been a di­vis­ive one.

“Term lim­its are a great idea,” said Rep. Sean Patrick Malo­ney. “We should do them in con­junc­tion with achiev­ing the oth­er goals we have, which are in­clu­sion and di­versity, and I think that’s pos­sible. I think it will en­cour­age new mem­bers to take on more re­spons­ib­il­ity, and I think that’s all pos­it­ive.”

Rep. Daniel Li­p­in­ski said he wasn’t ready to sup­port a spe­cif­ic pro­pos­al, but said “it would be good to have an op­por­tun­ity for new blood to come up and have that chance to take lead­er­ship roles.” Still, he wasn’t op­tim­ist­ic the caucus would em­brace any re­forms. “This is not something that Demo­crats have done be­fore; I don’t think we’re go­ing to make a change right now.”

For some, the lack of term lim­its is a di­versity is­sue. “We pride our­self as a caucus on be­ing the most di­verse, wheth­er that’s LGBT or wo­men or minor­it­ies,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy. “Well, what about the age piece? We are truly un­der­rep­res­en­ted on that front.” He went on to say that term lim­its are im­port­ant for re­tain­ing young tal­ent. “It’s just so far out of reach right now that people kind of throw up their hands,” he said. “I’ve spoken with some of my young­er col­leagues who want to know that there is at least an op­por­tun­ity in the near fu­ture to be­come that rank­ing mem­ber or chair.”

Mem­bers of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Caucus, which has tra­di­tion­ally op­posed term lim­its, dis­missed such grumblings as selfish and im­pa­tient. “At a time when our num­bers are an­em­ic, I’m not able to un­der­stand why we would cre­ate con­tro­versy in­side the caucus,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleav­er. “I think it’s ter­rible that we’ve cre­ated this mi­crowave so­ci­ety where nobody wants to wait on any­thing. It’s like this kid who says, ‘I just turned 18, where’s my car?’ ” He joked that he spent his early days in Con­gress on the “baby row” of the Fin­an­cial Ser­vices Com­mit­tee, but that al­low­ing seni­or­ity to run its course had al­lowed him to rise with­in the ranks.

“An over­whelm­ing num­ber of CBC mem­bers would op­pose any change to im­ple­ment­ing term lim­its,” ad­ded Caucus Chair­man G.K. But­ter­field. “I don’t see a ne­ces­sity for it.”¦ I think we ought to take the same en­ergy and con­cen­trate on our mes­saging.”

Even Rep. Cedric Rich­mond, a third-ter­mer who might stand to gain from term lim­its, stood with his CBC col­leagues in op­pos­ing the change. “There’s some value to length of ser­vice,” he said. “I think seni­or­ity’s im­port­ant.” As for lack of op­por­tun­it­ies for young mem­bers? “I haven’t heard that, and I don’t have those frus­tra­tions.”

One al­tern­at­ive, pro­posed by Rep. Eric Swal­well, would be to cre­ate the po­s­i­tion of vice rank­ing mem­ber to open up more of­fi­cial roles for fu­ture lead­ers. “We’ve got a lot of tal­ent, and you want to use your tal­ent the best you can,” he said. However, most of his col­leagues were un­fa­mil­i­ar with the pro­pos­al, and some ex­pressed con­cerns that it could cre­ate an heir ap­par­ent with­in com­mit­tees.

What We're Following See More »
AMONG INVESTIGATION'S LAST KNOWN INTERVIEWS
Mueller Has Interviewed Press Sec. Sarah Sanders
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has interviewed White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, she told CNN on Friday...The interview is one of the final known interviews by Mueller's team. It was conducted late last year, around the same time as the special counsel interviewed then-White House chief of staff John Kelly, well after a number of other senior officials, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks and former press secretary Sean Spicer, were brought in for questioning."

Source:
AG BECERRA CALLS TRUMP'S PLAN A 'FOOLISH PROPOSAL'
Gov. Newsom Says California Will Sue Trump Over Emergency Declaration
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday that California was planning to sue the Trump administration over its declaration of a national emergency on the southern border with Mexico, delivering on a promise state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra made last week 'to reject this foolish proposal in court the moment it touches the ground.'...'No other state is going to be impacted by this declaration of emergency more than the state of California,' the governor said. Becerra said attorneys were reviewing the declaration and would develop the legal argument to take to court in the near future."

Source:
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Source:
JUDGE SIDES WITH MUELLER
Stone Under Gag Order
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A federal judge on Friday ordered Roger Stone, his attorneys and the special counsel’s office to halt all public commentary about the case involving charges that the longtime Donald Trump associate lied to Congress and obstructed its Russia investigation. In a four-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with Mueller that Stone and his attorneys 'must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.'"

Source:
REDIRECTS $8 BILLION
Trump Declares National Emergency
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login