Congress Finally Agrees On Something, Forms Committee to Study What It Was
WASHINGTON — In what congressional observers called a rare and possibly historic display of bipartisan cooperation, the United States Senate convened a special hearing Tuesday to formally consider whether the United States Senate should continue to exist. The motion passed unanimously.
The six-hour session, organized by the Committee on Rules and Administration, drew 34 of the Senate's 100 members, a turnout several senior senators described as "strong" given that many of their colleagues had scheduling conflicts, were in constituent meetings, or had not been made aware the hearing was occurring. Three additional senators arrived during the closing remarks, asked if they had missed anything, and were told no.
"What we're doing today is asking the hard questions," said Committee Chairman Gerald T. Prentiss, Republican of Nebraska, in his opening remarks. "The American people deserve a Senate that is accountable. And if that Senate is this one, so be it. If it is some other institution, we are prepared to explore that." He added that his office had already received inquiries from the Elks Club and a regional bowling league.
Ranking Member Sylvia Okonkwo-Harte, Democrat of Massachusetts, called the hearing "long overdue." She noted that she had first proposed a similar hearing in 2019, at which point the Senate had formed a working group to study the proposal, which had not yet reported back.
"For too long, this body has failed to examine whether this body is working," she said. "Today we begin that examination. I want to thank Chairman Prentiss for his leadership, and I look forward to a robust, evidence-based conversation that results in the formation of a working group to determine next steps."
Both senators received sustained applause from staff, none of whom were sure why.
The hearing came in response to a Gallup poll released last month showing Senate approval ratings at "hantavirus" levels, statistically zero. A follow-up poll found that 64 percent of Americans believed Congress was "not working," 22 percent believed it had "never worked," and 14 percent were unsure Congress still existed. The remaining 0 percent believed it was working well, which pollsters attributed to rounding.
That last figure was described by several senators as "alarming."
"People aren't sure we're here," said Sen. Douglas Feld, Democrat of Oregon. "I'm here. I can confirm that. I have a parking pass." He paused. "But the fact that Americans have to take that on faith tells you something about our communications problem."
Sen. Feld later clarified that he was not suggesting the Senate's problem was primarily communicative in nature.
"It might also be functional," he said. "Or structural. Or possibly it's pointless at this point. We're keeping an open mind."
The first panel of witnesses included two constitutional scholars, a former Senate parliamentarian, a behavioral economist, and a man named Gerald Hawes who had driven from Akron, Ohio, because he saw the hearing listed on C-SPAN's website and had not had anything to do that day. He was the only witness to receive a round of applause.
Dr. Anita Flores, a constitutional scholar from Georgetown University Law Center, told the committee that the Senate was, as of the date of her testimony, still legally required to exist.
"Article One of the Constitution establishes a bicameral legislature," she said. "Congress cannot dissolve itself without amending the Constitution, which would require, among other things, Congress to be functioning well enough to pass an amendment."
She paused.
"I recognize the circularity there," she added. "I did not say it would be easy. I said it would be unconstitutional."
Under questioning from Sen. Prentiss, Dr. Flores confirmed that the Senate had technically passed legislation in recent years, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and a resolution naming a post office in Flagstaff, Arizona, after a local veteran. She noted that the post office resolution had passed 97-0.
"So there is output," Sen. Prentiss said.
"There is output," Dr. Flores agreed.
"Would you characterize that output as sufficient?"
Dr. Flores consulted her notes for a moment.
"I would characterize it as output," she said.
The hearing grew briefly contentious during the second panel, when Sen. Marjorie Fulton, Republican of Tennessee, asked witness Dr. Paul Chen, a behavioral economist at the Brookings Institution, whether the Senate's approval rating could be improved through "better branding."
Dr. Chen said that while messaging strategies could influence short-term perception, research consistently showed that public trust in institutions was correlated with institutional performance.
"So you're saying we need to perform better," Sen. Fulton said.
"That would be one interpretation of the data, yes."
"That seems like a very Washington answer."
Dr. Chen noted that he had, in fact, come from Washington for the hearing, having been asked to testify by the Senate.
Sen. Fulton said she understood that but felt the answer was still inside-the-Beltway thinking.
Dr. Chen asked if she would like him to recommend something outside-the-Beltway.
"If you could," she said.
He recommended the Senate pass more legislation.
Sen. Fulton said that was easier said than done.
Dr. Chen agreed that it was. He then noted that he was not being paid for this.
Gerald Hawes, the man from Akron, was initially told he would not be permitted to testify, as he had not submitted written testimony in advance and was not a recognized expert in the relevant fields. However, after a 20-minute recess during which two witnesses lost audio connectivity and a third discovered a scheduling conflict, the committee invited him to the table.
Mr. Hawes said he had been watching C-SPAN for 30 years and had some thoughts.
"You people don't seem to like each other very much," he said, "and when you do like each other, you seem embarrassed about it. I don't know how you run a country like that. My bowling league has better chemistry, and we had a theft."
There was a silence.
"That's a fair observation," said Sen. Okonkwo-Harte.
"Thank you," said Mr. Hawes.
He was then informed his time had expired.
"I wasn't done," he said.
"None of us are," said Sen. Okonkwo-Harte.
The hearing concluded without a formal recommendation, which Sen. Prentiss said was "appropriate given where we are in the process."
The committee voted 8-3 to form a working group to study the question of the Senate's continued existence. The working group will include six senators, two outside consultants, and a bipartisan staff team, and is expected to deliver a preliminary report by the end of fiscal year 2027. The three dissenting senators said they preferred to form a subcommittee.
Sen. Okonkwo-Harte said she was "encouraged by the progress."
"We began today with a question," she said. "We leave today with a working group. That's not nothing. But it's also not much."
When a reporter asked whether the working group had the authority to actually recommend abolishing the Senate, a spokesperson for the committee said the matter was "outside the scope of the working group's mandate."
When the reporter asked what the working group's mandate was, the spokesperson said the working group would determine that at its first meeting, which had not yet been scheduled.
The reporter then asked when the first meeting would be scheduled.
The spokesperson said that would be the second meeting.
The Senate then recessed until Wednesday, when it will take up a bill to rename a post office. The post office in question was the same one named in the previous session's resolution, which had been misspelled.
— IRREVERENT NEWZ — GENERAL DESK
IRREVERENT Magazine is a work of satire and parody. All quotes, scenarios, and attributed statements in this article are fictional and intended for humorous purposes. Senators Gerald T. Prentiss, Sylvia Okonkwo-Harte, Douglas Feld, and Marjorie Fulton are fictional characters. Gerald Hawes is also fictional, though we feel he should exist.