Congress
Inside the fierce House GOP war over committee waivers
House Republicans for decades have prided themselves on their strict three-term limit for committee leaders, saying it promotes fresh blood in the party ranks.
But that limit has grown less strict in recent years, and a growing number of GOP lawmakers are aching for a crackdown.
Three of the 20 sitting House chairs have signaled interest in applying for a waiver to bypass the six-year term limit Republicans have had in place for more than 30 years. If each follows through, it would be the first time so many exceptions have been sought at once — and some Republicans are openly warning the practice is spinning out of control.
“We have term limits for a reason,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in an interview.
The question will be in the hands of the House Republican Steering Committee, a 35-member body representing a cross-section of the larger GOP conference. Depending on the outcome of the midterms — and the subsequent GOP leadership elections — the influential panel could also see an influx of younger members who might be even less inclined to give longtime committee leaders a two-year extension.
“They don’t owe the old guys anything,” Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) said in an interview. “They don’t see seniority as the main thing anymore, because even leadership is pretty young. So this is a whole new generation.”
The up-or-out dynamic has long been a point of distinction inside the House GOP, where generational resentments have been much more muted than among Democrats — who have no committee term limits and have seen younger members chafe as veterans spend a decade or more occupying top panel spots.
This year, however, both Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania and Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers of Alabama have said they intend to seek waivers after leading their respective committees for six years already. So, too, has Rep. Ken Calvert of California, who chairs the powerful Appropriations subcommittee on Defense and is already serving a fourth term under a waiver. Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman of Arkansas has also signaled he might seek an exception.
As the chairs line up to make their case to the Steering Committee, many of its current members are publicly voicing their opposition to watering down the term limits rule, which dates to 1992 under the leadership of then-future Speaker Newt Gingrich.
“I would say waivers are rare and will remain so,” said Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), a Steering member. “There’s also a lot of talent that has been waiting.”
“There’s a reason we have term limits — they work,” said Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), another Steering member who is challenging Thompson for the Agriculture spot.
At least one top GOP leader is sending similar signals: Majority Whip Tom Emmer said in a recent interview he’s “not a fan” of the waiver practice, while Speaker Mike Johnson, who gets an outsize four votes in Steering matters, said he would leave the waiver debate to the panel.
“We haven’t gotten to that yet,” Johnson told Blue Light News. “We’ll figure it out.”
There is some precedent for granting waivers.
In 2022, North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx, then the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, successfully applied for a waiver after Republicans retook the majority after four years of Democratic control. She argued she’d had only two years as chair and had more work to get done.
Two years later, Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Sam Graves of Missouri made his pitch to stay for a fourth term, and was granted a waiver to the surprise of several Republicans.
One key factor: Both Foxx and Graves had backing from members of their committees, including those next in line for the position. That doesn’t appear to be the case this time around.
Now, not only is Scott looking to immediately succeed Thompson, but Rogers is facing challenges from Reps. Ronny Jackson of Texas, Rob Wittman of Virginia and Trent Kelly of Mississippi. Westerman hasn’t officially thrown his hat into the ring, but Rep. Pete Stauber of Minnesota is already in the Natural Resources race, and Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona has floated interest.
“I support term limits. I always have. It wouldn’t matter if I was in this race or not,” Scott said. “There are some other people that are very good friends of mine that are termed out, and I would not support a term limit for them.”
Rogers hasn’t disclosed his specific pitch for a waiver, saying in an interview at the Capitol earlier this month that he’s “not going to talk about that before the election.”
Thompson, meanwhile, has already circulated a letter to Steering Committee members asking for their support, citing his “temperament and willingness to roll up my sleeves to get the job done.” Notably, it remains uncertain whether Congress will be able to pass a farm bill this year — typically a crowning achievement for any Agriculture chair.
Matt Brennan, Thompson’s chief of staff, said in a statement that the chair is focused on the November election but “will continue to make his intentions known to members of the Steering Committee and the conference at large in the coming weeks.”
Some Republicans believe the issue could solve itself, especially if the GOP loses its majority in November and the chairs would instead be looking at two years as ranking members. And others simply believe the number of lawmakers seeking exceptions will work against all of them. The last time multiple chairs sought waivers, in 2010, both were denied.
“The more people that apply for waivers, the less likely any of them are to happen because then you’re in a position of having to make choices,” Cole said. “Either they all get it or they all don’t get it.”
Connor O’Brien and Grace Yarrow contributed to this report.
Sen. Bernie Moreno said Thursday he expects the Senate to move a party-line legislative package after the midterm elections — especially if Democrats flip one or both chambers.
“We will do a reconciliation bill — one way or the other we will,” the Ohio Republican told reporters at the Capitol, referring to the simple-majority budget process. “Obviously, if we lose control of Congress, it’ll be the Last Supper.”
Such a bill, he added, would be “giant” and would include “all the Republican priorities that we can get done.”
The House approved a framework for a party-line bill over the summer that includes war funding, farm aid and election integrity incentives. But the push has so far run aground in the Senate
Moreno said the threat of imminent Democratic control of either the House or Senate would jumpstart matters — and potentially push Republicans to include a debt-ceiling increase as well.
The borrowing limit is set to be reached sometime next year, and a Democratic majority could have significant leverage to demand concessions as part of any deal — something the GOP could forestall by acting in the lame-duck session.
“I mean, nobody wants to see a debt default,” Moreno said. “That would be 1929 on steroids.”
Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) also told reporters on Capitol Hill that a new reconciliation bill “has to happen” after the election but warned against expanding the scope of the House framework.
“I think you have to go with the one that we’ve got,” he told reporters. “The Senate needs to act and get the job done.”
A senior member of the Armed Services Committee, Wittman said the legislation is “key to restock our weapons magazine” and “should be the main focus when [members] get back.”
Moreno said if Democrats win control of both chambers, Republicans should stay in session nonstop to pass GOP legislation — which could be a tall order given worries about poor post-election attendance.
“If we lose the House and the Senate, we should be here from Nov. 9 until Dec. 31 with no break at all,” Moreno said. “Like, we’ll have turkeys here for Thanksgiving because we have to get this done.”
Authorities are investigating letters containing “suspicious substances” sent to multiple Capitol Hill offices, according to a notice sent to senior congressional staff.
“Law enforcement officials are working to intercept any additional letters before they are delivered, however, it is possible that some letters may reach their destinations,” says a memo from the Senate Sergeant at Arms and obtained by Blue Light News.
The Capitol Police, FBI and U.S. Postal Inspection Service are involved in the probe, according to the notice, which said additional letters have been mailed to other addresses across the U.S., including lawmakers’ state and district offices.
It is unclear if any of the suspicious letters reached Capitol Hill. Letters and packages sent to congressional offices are subject to off-site screening under a system established after the 2001 anthrax attacks.
The memo includes a photo of one of the suspicious envelopes and warns staff to keep an eye out for warning signs, such as messy handwriting or postmarks that do not match the return address. The memo was first reported by Bloomberg Government.
Suspicious letters were also sent to state election offices and election officials, according to a joint statement Wednesday from the National Association of Secretaries of State and National Association of State Election Directors.
They said they are working with law enforcement to protect “personnel and facilities” and that contingency plans and security measures are in place to respond to threats “while maintaining essential election operations.”
House and Senate mail is processed in two separate Maryland facilities where materials are screened, irradiated and tested for a variety of substances before they are sent to the Capitol complex — a process that can add as much as two weeks to delivery.
The process has proved effective in the past, catching a string of suspected explosive devices sent to prominent Democrats in 2018 and a ricin-laced envelope sent to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) in 2013.
Members’ district and state offices have the option to send mail for screening before it is delivered or to contract with a similar mail security system.
Jordain Carney contributed to this report.
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers urged President Donald Trump to follow through on the Russia sanctions law he signed last month, warning on Thursday against giving Moscow economic relief as a key enforcement deadline approaches.
In a letter led by Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and shared first with Blue Light News, 22 House lawmakers asked Trump to fully implement the sanctions law named after the late Sen. Lindsey Graham by Oct. 18 and scrap his administration’s recent Russian diesel deal.
“As Russia prepares to wage a fifth winter campaign against Ukraine, the United States has an opportunity to reinvigorate peace efforts by placing maximum pressure on Vladimir Putin and the governments and networks that finance his war,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter sent to Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
The House lawmakers called for the Trump administration to apply sanctions “to their fullest extent and without delay” against Russian officials, oligarchs and banks financing the war — as well as the foreign banks, shadow fleet operators and intermediaries helping Moscow evade restrictions.
Included among the lawmakers who signed Thursday’s letter are Republican Reps. Don Bacon (Neb.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Michael McCaul (Texas), Dan Newhouse (Wash.) and Joe Wilson (S.C.), along with Democrats including Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) and Jared Golden (Maine) — among others.
The lawmakers’ demands Thursday add to growing bipartisan pressure on Trump over his deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after the president announced on Friday that Russia would supply hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel to the “American and Global Marketplace.”
They also requested details on which sanctions and tariffs will take effect before Oct. 18, whether any provisions will be delayed or waived, and how the administration reconciles the diesel license with the existing statutory ban on Russian energy imports.
“Putin has repeatedly shown that he responds to pressure, not goodwill,” the House members wrote. “This will make clear that American resolve is bipartisan and durable, and that the cost of continuing this war will only grow until Russia comes to the negotiating table.
The White House, the State Department and the Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Trump defended the agreement Tuesday as “a deal for the world,” saying the diesel would enter global markets rather than go directly to the U.S. The move comes as the president scrambles to try to bring down fuel prices ahead of the midterms.
The Iran war — now in its seventh month — has contributed to the surge in costs, with the average price of diesel peaking at a record $6.53 per gallon in September, according to AAA.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words