House is jarred by a procedural implosion

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

“Procedural implosion” (my coinage) is an anomalous term. It could be the second cousin of “planned chaos.” It is especially incongruous in Congress, which depends on uniform procedures to process legislation in an orderly fashion.

Parliamentary procedures set the table for considering legislation. When a handful of members are displeased with the legislative program, they can throw a fit and potentially upend the leadership table for a week.

The latest kerfuffle began the week of June 22, when the House Rules Committee brought forward a special rule providing for floor consideration of four major measures, including two of the 12 regular appropriations bills for the State Department, and for energy and water.

In that instance, the leadership’s headcount showed the votes were not there even to adopt the rule. A coterie of conservatives were insisting on first jump-starting the SAVE Act’s election law changes and considering a border security bill. The rule was pulled and the House adjourned late Tuesday for the week, having accomplished nothing.

The SAVE acronym stands for “safeguard American voter eligibility.” It would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, require a photo ID to actually vote, and prohibit most mail-in voting. The president’s attempt to implement his election law changes by executive order of March 26, 2025, has been blocked by a permanent injunction issued by a federal district court judge last month. The court concluded a president has no constitutional authority to oversee elections.

The SAVE Act originally passed the House on April 10, 2025, by a vote of 220-208. It stalled in the Senate for lack of the required three-fifths cloture vote to terminate a filibuster. The House subsequently passed a revised version last February, 218-213. Again, the Senate did not budge.

Last week, the House majority leadership attempted to avoid a repeat defeat by making a procedural tweak to save the SAVE Act in a special rule for four measures, including the Defense Department authorization bill. The rule directed the House Clerk, after passage of the defense measure, to attach the SAVE Act language to it.

That did not appease the group of Republican holdouts, who feared it would be too easy for the Senate to decouple the two. Consequently, the special rule was defeated, 198 to 224, with all Democrats and 14 Republicans, including Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), voting against. Scalise’s “nay” vote was necessary to retain his right to reconsider the rule vote, which he asserted. That vote will be pending when the House returns on July 13.

In the interim, President Trump has been holding hostage the bipartisan housing affordability bill, which passed both chambers overwhelmingly, until Congress puts the SAVE Act on his desk. Unless he vetoes the housing bill, it will become law anyway after ten business days from its passage — that is, tomorrow.

The president has repeatedly called on the Senate to abolish the filibuster rule in order to pass the SAVE Act, though that rule is sacrosanct to many senators who consider it one of the last bastions of minority rights. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) says a vote is unlikely this year.

The president has also asked that the SAVE bill be expanded to include some of his other pet ponies including barring transgender athletes from playing in women’s and girls’ sports, and restricting gender change surgeries for minors. The president has further requested $88 billion in supplemental appropriations to restock our Iran war arsenal.

Some members, and the president, are already suggesting that such an augmented SAVE package be thrown into yet another budget reconciliation bill, although that process is limited to mandatory spending and revenue law changes.

Given the Supreme Court’s decision last week upholding the Constitution’s birthright citizenship clause, the president is already pressuring Congress to somehow reverse the ruling legislatively — perhaps as another potential item for the reconciliation grab bag.

Such a hodgepodge-mishmash could hardly be compared to last-year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Instead, it would uglify the legislative process and likely detonate a procedural implosion of much greater magnitude than what happened last week.

The House Republican majority has a slim margin, presently 219-212. The Speaker cannot afford to lose more than three of his Republicans members. “This is life with a small margin,” he has conceded, but he adds, “we’ll work through it.” That leaves a lot to work through in the next six weeks of legislative sessions before November’s midterm elections. Meantime, both parties are madly scrambling to craft policies and messages that could determine the outcome.

Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran, culminating as chief-of-staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, “Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial” (2000), and, “Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays” (2018).