Numerous measures pertaining to crypto regulation and non-regulation have been teed up by the GOP leadership.
It was more akin to a mysterious week.
“I am tired of making history. I just want normal Congress,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana.
The House was delaying a procedural vote to start debating the three cryptocurrency bills, which is what Johnson was referring to. However, due to a revolt by conservative members of the House, last Wednesday’s vote started at 1:19 p.m. and ended at 11:04 p.m. In doing so, the House set a new record of nine hours and forty-five minutes for the longest vote in history. The House did, however, just set a new record for the longest vote earlier this month, just before the debate on the “big, beautiful bill.” The previous voting record was seven hours and thirty-one minutes.
They informed me that yesterday night’s open voting established a new record or something. How long a vote is open, however, never worries me. All we need to do is get the desired outcomes,” Johnson thought.
It was a messier week in Congress than a Coldplay show.
Last Tuesday, the House majority faltered when conservatives refused to bring the crypto bills to the floor due to a variety of concerns, despite Republicans’ intention to move them forward. In order to stop the House from discussing the legislation, its opposition blew up a test vote. According to the report, the uprising surprised the GOP leadership and enraged President Donald Trump, who had hoped to sign one of the cryptocurrency measures into law by the end of last week.
Tuesday night, some of the insurgents hurried to the White House so that President Trump could resolve the issue, and Johnson joined him on the phone.
In light of this, the House made a second attempt last Wednesday. However, the matter was not quickly resolved by the president and GOP leadership, which led to Wednesday’s historic roll call vote.
There are times when majorities in both parties find it difficult to pass significant legislation, and occasionally their own legislative efforts are thwarted by persistent members. Leaders interact with members and include the president for this reason. But all was not settled.
I am unable to cite a single instance in which House leaders of either party experienced an internal uprising, attempted to resolve it the following day, and failed again. Furthermore, the president’s intervention enhances this.
However, last Thursday afternoon, the House was able to move the crypto bills forward at last. The House was then able to move on to a bill to revoke the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid funding that Congress had previously approved.
Nevertheless, it was a race against clock.
Congress has until Friday night at 11:59:59 p.m. ET to approve the clawback. It was a dead package otherwise. A second attempt by Republicans would result in a Senate filibuster. Completing the process to stop the expenditure was a sprint. The bill was finally approved by the Senate last Thursday just before 2:30 a.m. ET. At 12:05 a.m. ET on Friday, after outrage over the cryptocurrency legislation, the House was able to align with the Senate; however, there was a disagreement over whether the House could truly sync up in time.
In addition to the House’s crypto problem, the Senate’s slow pace made things tougher.
Earlier this month, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., had just finished a lengthy speech criticizing the “big, beautiful bill.” Jeffries’ eight-hour, forty-five-minute speech on the morning of July 3 was the longest in House history (recall Johnson’s statement that the House was creating history?). Will Jeffries be able to extend the deadline past Friday, given that the House is still somewhat stalled by the crypto stasis?
For one thing, Jeffries would need to have a lot of endurance in such a situation. In fact, earlier this year, Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, set a new record for the longest speech in Senate history. Booker talked from March 31 to April 1 for a total of 25 hours and 5 minutes. Nonetheless, a senator with the floor may “yield for a question” to another senator in accordance with Senate procedures. Like a basketball timeout, sort of. Several “timeouts” were awarded to Booker while other Democrats took over and delivered long remarks. They just needed to conclude their statements with an interrogative to punctuate them. As a result, Booker was able to keep the floor both physically and politically.
There is no “timeout” in the House.
Most House speeches last a minute. However, it is traditional to show respect to the senior leaders of both parties. Thus, the speaker of the House, the House minority leader, and perhaps a few others score what is known as a “magic minute.” The presiding officer simply does not dismiss those leaders after a minute. They can speak for as long as they wish, but they must do the speaking. They can’t simply hand over to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., or Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. It’s all up to the person who has the floor.
Jeffries was asked, “Do you expect any delay tactics tonight to try to stall this?” just hours before the expenditure cancellation legislation was introduced. “You set a record with a speech just a couple of weeks ago.”
“All we want is a vigorous and lively debate on the House floor so we can explain to the American people why Republicans are still doing things that harm them instead of helping them,” Jeffries said.
So you’re not waiting for a “magic moment” like you did a few weeks ago? I followed up.
“I do anticipate taking part in the debate,” Jeffries replied. Additionally, I anticipate speaking for more than a minute.
The Congressional press corps laughed at it.
But PBS NewsHour’s Lisa Desjardins wasn’t finished with Jeffries.
To be clear, are you thinking about giving a speech that would be sufficiently lengthy to go over the allotted time? Desjardins was asked.
“I’m surprised how much attention the ‘magic minute’ is generating at this particular point in time,” said Jeffries.
“Well, the fate of all this money could come to that,” the analyst noted.
Jeffries stated during the press conference that he planned to meet with Zorhan Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor of New York, that Friday. Liberals have criticized Jeffries for not endorsing Mamdani, who has yet to do so. Jeffries is in a difficult situation as he and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., try to figure out what to do about Mamdani. Mamdani is seen by many Democrats as being too liberal for the party and as having the potential to cost Democrats House seats in the 2026 midterm elections, particularly in crucial districts around New York City.
Following the press conference, Jeffries was followed down the corridor by a group of reporters.
CBS’s Caitlin Huey-Burns was asked, “What kinds of things are you considering on whether to endorse?”
“I’m looking forward to the conversation tomorrow, and we’ll explore all of the issues that I just discussed with our Democratic nominee, and then we’ll take it from there,” Jeffries said.
The reliable reporter questioned Jeffries about “what would be the signal” for him to support Mamdani or another candidate.
Jeffries replied, “I have a sit-down conversation and then I take it from there, as has been the case with every single high-profile endorsement decision that I’ve made in the past.”
The combination of Jeffries’ political predicament and the budget cut bill raised the question of whether he would have a unique chance.
“Would you use your magic minute to keep from having the meeting tomorrow?” I inquired.
The people gathered in the Capitol corridor laughed at the question, but Jeffries left without answering.
Jeffries testified against spending cancellation measure for fifteen minutes later that evening. On Friday, he met with Mamdani. Furthermore, he had yet to comment on the New York mayor’s race.
Cryptic indeed.
