Richard M. Nolan

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at the request of Mr. John Lawrence. Before this most recent election, Mr. Lawrence wrote a book about what the Congressional Class of 1974 can teach the incoming Congressional Class. As a member of that class myself, I'm sure others will find this interview and the book it's about as interesting as I did.

The Watergate Babies

(Claire Potter and John Lawrence)

It is less than ninety days until Election. Day in the

United States, when Democrats hope to achieve one of the

biggest sweeps of Congressional seats in recent American

history. Many of these Democratic hopefuls are veterans. As

longtime political strategist Joe Trippi put it back in

March, these are candidates who are new to the electoral

arena, people who ``served the country without worrying about

who's a Democrat and who's a Republican'' and just want to

``get the damn thing done.'' And a record-breaking 40% of the

Democratic House candidates this primary season are women,

some of them veterans as well.

If the Democrats' hopes are fulfilled, will this be

unprecedented? Not really. On July 24 2018, we published an

excerpt from a book written by historian John Lawrence,

former chief of staff for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In The Class

of '74: Congress after Watergate and the Roots of

Partisanship (Johns Hopkins, 2018), Lawrence tracks this

earlier revolution, its achievements, and its flaws.

John sat down to talk to us about the book this week, and

its implications for our current political situation.

Claire Potter: John, thanks for joining us at Public

Seminar. You were trained as a professional historian, and

then went into politics, a career path that, as you noted in

this essay, mystified your advisors at Berkeley. First, I

want to ask you: how did a Ph.D. in history prepare you for a

career that eventually led you to becoming Speaker of the

House Nancy Pelosi's chief of staff?

John Lawrence: Many of the people working on Capitol Hill

in key policy and management roles have legal training or

campaign experience. Both are valuable, but don't train

people to contextualize current issues into a broader

narrative. Training in history provided that skill,

particularly research methodology and, perhaps most

significantly, writing skills. Politics is often a very

presentist business. While attorneys certainly are aware of

judicial and legal precedents, historians have the ability to

view contemporary debates through a unique prism that helps

explain the evolution and nature of complex issues.

CP: OK, now I want to turn that question around. How did

your work in politics support the writing of The Class of

'74? What did you bring to writing this book that a scholar

who has not spent 38 years working in the House of

Representatives would not have?

JL: Politics is an intensely personal business. Working in

Congress for nearly four decades enabled me to develop close

relationships with dozens of members, staff, reporters and

others whose decisions shape the making of public policy and

the design of political strategies and campaigns. These

connections enabled me to gather material for The Class of

'74 that, I have no doubt, would have been impossible for a

researcher without my experience.

Many who write about Congress without this personal

connection often miss the nuances of why legislators make

certain decisions because motivations can be tied to personal

relationships and other factors that are difficult to

quantify. I think this is why political scientists, in

particular, who frequently eschew the narrative in favor of

data analysis of voting patterns, often miss much of what

really explains how Congress, and politics more broadly,

works.

CP: Thanks. Now let's get to the book-prior to 1974, the

mood in Congress was changing, and not just because of

Watergate. Reflecting some of the disdain for authority that

was moving politics in the street, younger Representatives

were pushing back against the way the institution ran. What

were the issues?

JL: Certainly, the most significant stimulus to the

changing mood in Congress was Vietnam. The war was important

on many levels: the reassertion of congressional prerogatives

against the Imperial Presidency that developed and promoted

the war; the rise in the use of oversight to challenge

official accounts of the status of the war; the resistance to

the draft; the emergence of an investigative, aggressive

journalism that often worked collaboratively with dissidents

in Congress.

There were other issues that raised passionate concerns

among newer members of Congress too: civil rights, women's

equality, the environment, energy policy, consumer

protection, among them. Within Congress, reformers also

resented the structure of the institution. Power was lodged

largely in autonomous chairmen who did not need to be

responsive to the views of the broader membership because

their chairmanships were virtually guaranteed by the

seniority system--instituted after the 1910 revolt against

Speaker Joseph Cannon. Increasingly in the late 1960s and

early 1970s, it became evident to the younger reformers that

it was essential to challenge the awarding of chairmanships

on the basis of duration of service alone. If chairmen did

not have to be responsive to the broader membership, then the

issues that the younger, more progressive, cohort wished to

elevate could be (and often were) suppressed by more

conservative chairs.

CP: In 1974, in a far bigger sweep than was anticipated, 76

Democrats were elected to the House, 49 replacing Republican

incumbents. What set the stage for this colossal shift in

power?

JL: Longstanding disapproval of the Vietnam policy played a

significant role in encouraging reformers to run and in their

winning. So, too, did the recent oil embargo which had

elevated public anxiety and accentuated the need for a

national energy policy. By 1974, Watergate, with all of its

turmoil within the Executive Branch and Congress, as well,

helped create a demand for reform of what was viewed as a

corrupt White House. Certainly, the revelation of the Nixon

tapes and Nixon's subsequent resignation complicated the re-

election of many loyalists who had stood by the President as

the crisis deepened.

President Ford's pardon of Nixon, coming just weeks before

the election, further cemented the idea that corruption was

rampant in Washington and a housecleaning was in order.

Lastly, the continuing poor economy, and the ineffectual

response of the Ford Administration--the Whip Inflation Now

campaign--created a toxic political environment for many

Republicans: corruption, recession, energy disruptions and

price hikes. The climate was perfect for new, optimistic,

earnest young candidates like the Class of '74.

CP: Sounds like a perfect political storm. Vietnam was

obviously huge, as was inflation that would soon push the

American economy into a real crisis. What were the other

concerns these ``Watergate babies'' had in common--and what

policy problems divided them?

JL: The issues around which the Class of '74 were most

united were the internal reforms that disseminated power in

Congress. The changes they made, effectuated in December,

1974, gave heightened power to the Caucus and strengthened

the role of subcommittees on which freshmen and other

reformers enjoyed disproportionate strength, enabling them to

raise and promote issues. These changes benefitted all new

members by increasing their participatory rights, regardless

of their ideology or view on specific issues.

When the freshmen were faced with policy questions where

their constituents had particular interests, or where

constituents had strongly held views--issues like abortion,

school busing, labor law and energy--the unanimity within the

freshmen caucus proved somewhat more difficult to maintain.

However, it should be noted that overall, the freshmen not

only voted with significant consistency but they were also

among the most loyal to the Democratic leadership's

positions.

CP: 1974 was also, in some ways, the twilight of Republican

liberalism: you point out in the book that while many

Republicans shared the majority's ``goal of democratizing

House procedures,'' their ``objectives were quite

different.'' Can you describe these differences?

JL: Newer members in both parties stood to gain from

changes that extended greater participation to those with

less seniority. And Republicans in general were supportive of

reforms that not only benefitted the minority (for example,

the ability to hire more staff on committees) but members in

general. Whereas Democratic freshmen used expanded rights to

raise issues and offer amendments in committee and on the

floor to promote more progressive ideas, Republicans

increasingly became skilled at exploiting the more open rules

to force less secure Democrats into casting controversial

votes that could render them vulnerable to political

challenge.

Similarly, Republicans very successfully learned to utilize

the coverage of committee and floor proceedings by television

cameras to send messages to supporters and to raise issues

that favored GOP policies. When Democrats rescinded some

reforms that constrained the ability of Republicans to

exploit divisive issues, strategists like Newt Gingrich were

able to make a case against the majority for being heavy-

handed and unfair, which they cited as justifying a change in

control of the House.

CP: By the late 1970s, the political terrain in the United

States was quite different: what changed in the 1970s, and

how did that set the stage for the polarized politics of the

21st century?

JL: The signs of a more polarized politics were developing

quite markedly in the mid-to-late 1970s, although many date

the emergence of a revitalized conservatism to the 1980 and

the Reagan Era. Many of the key changes were driven by

demographics, especially the movement of many conservative

white voters from the Northeast and Midwest to the border and

southern states in search of jobs. Reaction to the civil

rights movement, the anti-Vietnam and student protests and

the whole litany of ``sex, drugs and rock-and-roll'' cultural

divisions all

helped fuel a revitalization of the long-dormant Republican

Party in the South, especially after the George Wallace

campaign of 1968 convinced many conservatives to bolt from

the Democratic Party.

The renewal of southern Republicans was also aided by a

highly politicized evangelicism, and cultural issues proved

crucial to the success of this strategy. Changes in federal

laws made it easier for a significant expansion of

independent campaign fundraising and grassroots mobilization

based around single issues rather than being subject to party

leaders. The election of many conservative Republicans in the

South in the late 1970s and early 1980s deprived Democrats of

the security of an invincible majority, and the heightened

competition for majority control drove money, activism and

legislative strategy into increasingly partisan directions.

While the reforms of 1974 did not ``cause'' partisanship,

the availability to raise and promote divisive issues that

was permitted by a more open and participatory Congress

inadvertently provided Republican with greater opportunities

than they would have enjoyed under a more closed system.

CP: Finally, John, we have an election in less than three

months, one in which the House seems to be, once again, up

for grabs. A key theme driving this reversal is the Trump

presidency. Some commenters see a possible Democratic House

as a check on the Trump policies that Congressional

Republicans have mostly supported; others talk about the

possibility of the new majority moving forward on

impeachment.

Are we back in 1974?

JL: The idea of a Democratic House as a check on the Trump

agenda seems to me to have the most salience. Even though the

President would retain significant authority through the use

of executive orders and other presidential powers, a

Democratic House would check legislative attacks on key

Democratic policies like the Affordable Care Act, the Clean

Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Of course, a Republican Senate would still enable Trump to

appoint people of his choosing to the federal courts and

executive agencies, but a Democratic House would have the

power of oversight and subpoenas to investigate possible

misuses of power that today go unexamined. I suspect there

would be strong resistance in a Democratic majority to moving

ahead with impeachment: here are no prospects for success in

the Senate. More importantly, there would be a clear

perception in this new freshman class that the American

people had voted for Democrats in order to pursue other

policies in the area of economics, children, the environment,

energy and corruption in government.

However, should Special Prosecutor Mueller ultimately

recommend that Congress look into presidential abuses of

authority, it would be very difficult to dampen the demands

for an impeachment inquiry.

CP: What advice would the Class of 1974 have for today's

Democratic party?

JL: If you asked those in the Class who were most

successful during their careers, I think they would likely

advise newcomers to learn how the institution works, develop

close relations with colleagues, find areas of policy on

which they would like to focus (rather than be a gadfly with

something to say on every issue.) Newcomers will want to pay

attention to building and strengthening your networks with

constituents, without whom you have no power to accomplish

your goals.

As I say in my book, ``before you save the world, you have

to save your seat.'' I also think that, at least some would

advise the freshmen of 2019 not to spend a lot of time

looking over their shoulders trying to avoid controversial

positions that some voters might dislike. Many in the Class

of '74 were surprised to have won in the first place, and

they were determined to make their impact as swiftly and

decisively as possible because they did not expect to remain

in Congress very long.

So, I think the message would be, ``Don't spend a lot of

time trying to figure out if an issue or a vote plays

positively or negatively. Do what you think is right, explain

your position frankly to your constituents, and you'll be

surprised how often they support your decision.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today at the request of Mike Menning who hopes that, by sharing his story, no other family will have to go through what he and his family have.

Dropped Off the Operating Table

Dawn Menning was Dropped off the Operating Table at Intermountain

Medical Center Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT on March 3, 2017

Dawn Menning's Narrative About Injury and Pain

Let me begin by recalling what I can about the abdominal

hernia surgery and resulting incident.

At least a year prior to March 2017 I visited Dr. Kelly

Nolan about the growth in an abdominal hernia I was

observing. She noted that it would be a repair of an earlier

surgery in 1996 and would require a more invasive approach.

In early 2017 after visiting my regular health care

physician, Dr. Nancy McLaughlin, Madsen Clinic--University of

Utah, and recognizing that the hernia had indeed grown I made

the decision to go forward with the surgery.

I visited Dr. Nolan at IHC for a pre-op appointment. I

spoke to her at length about my concern about the Homozygous

Factor V Leiden blood condition that I have--the challenge

and potential for blood clotting following surgery. She asked

if I could seek advice from my regular doctor or a hematology

specialist. Since I had never seen a specialist I contacted

Dr. McLaughlin who consulted with Dr. David Kaplan at the

University of Utah Clinic. He strongly advised against using

regular anticoagulants since the surgery was going to be in

the abdomen area and the shots, Lovenox, are administered

into the belly area. He suggested the use of a pill instead.

I contacted Dr. Nolan who called me back to say she had not

used the pill and advised to use Lovenox as she had

prescribed. I purchased the Lovenox 100 mg. on February 28. I

began using the shot one time on March 2, the day before

scheduled surgery.

I was told to NOT use the Lovenox 100 mg. on March 3, the

day of surgery, but resume using it the day after for ten

days following

surgery--two shots into the belly area each day.

Now onto the day of surgery as best I can remember. I

entered surgery feeling very well and was wondering how I

would feel following. I felt I was a pretty strong, healthy

70-year-old woman.

I waited for quite awhile in the hall prior to surgery and

noted that the attendant reached for a green flat toboggan

like piece of equipment that I assumed was placed under a

patient for transport. It had handles on the side as I

remember. I even thought, well, I suppose that's how I will

be transported from the gurney on which I was lying to the

operating table.

The anesthesiologist came into the hall to introduce

himself and assured me that they would monitor that I was

asleep during the surgery.

Finally I was wheeled in. They asked if I felt comfortable

moving myself onto the table and I assured them that I was

able. I do not remember what was or if there was anything

under my body.

Very soon I was off into another world.

The next thing I knew I was wheeled out of the operating

room by a female attendant and greeted by my husband who was

very alarmed. His first words were something like--I am so

glad you are alive or something close to that. I asked him

what in the world he meant. He said, ``Well, did you know

that you were dropped to the floor while being moved to the

gurney?'' I actually thought he was joking and said the same.

Marion responded with, ``No, I am not joking! They came out

and told me that while they were moving you the gurney was

not properly locked and you fell to the floor. The

anesthesiologist tried to brake the fall by extending his leg

and even hyperextended his knee.'' He said Dr. Nolan had come

to tell him and said they had examined me and found no

evidence of injury but would be sure to examine me further

before discharge.

I was wheeled back to the room and did not lose

consciousness again. Very soon I was pretty stable and the

attendant suggested that I could get dressed and leave as

soon as I wished. She recommended that Marion attend me in

dressing and take a look if there were any bruises or

evidence of injury. There was no one else of hospital

personnel who took a look at my backside or the incisions.

Dr. Nolan told me at my post-operative exam that she had come

to see me but I had already left for home. (It would seem

that in the case of the fall she would have been there soon

to see how I was doing.)

We arrived at the hospital in the morning and less than

five hours I was back home.

I had been prescribed pain medication (Norco 5 mg 1 to 2

tablets every four to six hours as needed) and used it as

prescribed.

I resumed the use of the Lovenox 100 mg two times a day for

five days. Since I would not have enough 10 more doses on

March 8.

The weekend was rough--I experienced much pain and

discomfort. I was not able to get up off the couch and was

thankful for a bar next to out toilet. Getting into bed

required the help of Marion, lifting my legs into bed and

even helping me to get up off the bed and turning.

By Monday morning the pain was increasing--rising into my

right side rib cage area. By then bruising in the abdominal

area had grown far beyond the incision area.

We called Dr. Nolan's office and were invited to come to

the office for examination. She checked my incision noting

that it was no oozing and agreed to order x-rays. She checked

the x-ray and said there was no evidence of cracked ribs and

said I should try to cut back on the pain medication as I was

able, perhaps using some Ibuprofen in between doses of Norco

since it has a high risk of addiction and dependence and a

side effect is constipation which is always a challenge for

me. Dr. Nolan also explained that she had not seen exactly

what had happened since she was doing charting off to the

side and didn't see anything until she heard a commotion and

saw I was on the floor. She did not offer details of number

of people but did retell us that the anesthesiologist had

hyperextended his knee.

I resumed my recovery at home. My husband made a visit to

the hospital to inquire about the fall. He did not receive

too much information but invited the Risk Management Staff to

at least offer an apology and visit me at home.

The rest of the week went pretty much the same although in

addition to the bruising my abdomen area was swelling and

tender. The bruising had spread out, down and up.

On March 8 by recommendation of the Dr. Nolan I purchased a

pain medication that would assist the transition from

narcotic medications to less strong medications--Triamino 20

mg. I tried using this but was longing for the Norco since

the pain was so intense.

During the night on Thursday, March 9 I had so much pain

and the pain medication was not helping. We went to the ER at

IMC. They noted intense pain, tender to the touch on my

abdomen. They started me on an IV for fluids. I begged for a

stronger pain medication but did not receive if for several

hours.

They did chest x-rays. An ultrasound and I don't remember

what else--but the ultrasound clearly showed that I had a

large hematoma in the abdomen area! This was obviously the

cause of the increased pain--the pressure on the incision and

the mesh that was used was causing intense pain.

Twelve hours after arriving I was admitted to a room. They

finally started me on an IV pain medication. After just a few

hours they said I could be discharged and they would give me

a stronger pain medication to take home. I declined insisting

that I wanted to be sure I was ahead of the pain before going

home. They also discontinued the use of the Lovenox shots.

The explanation was that since I had developed a hematoma the

blood thinner could interfere with my body's ability to

absorb the blood in that area. They explained that since

blood in a hematoma is very sticky it wasn't possible to

drain the collection but it would be a long process for my

body to deal with this. I was told to NOT use Ibuprofen since

that is a mild anticoagulant.

I returned home on March 11. I was given Norco 7.5 mg--a

stronger dose--one tablet every 4-6 hours. I was eager after

four hours!

The next week is kind of a blur--time passed with a perch

on the couch, in our bed (continued needing help to lift my

legs) and a few visitors.

On Monday, March 13 we had a visit from IHC. They brought a

lovely bouquet of flowers and were very sympatric but oh, so

careful about what had actually happened. They were evasive

about how many people were present.

That week I tried to resume some sort of ``normalcy'' to my

life. I went out for short periods of time. I was able to

move a little easier and didn't need assistance for getting

in and out of bed. However, the pain never left me.

Now onto March 23--I went to visit my primary doctor, Nancy

McLaughlin, to report what had happened. She was very alarmed

and concerned about the resulting blood problem. I reported a

very poor urinary stream and she assured me that this could

all be the result of weakened muscle tone and should improve

in time.

Time moved on and I even tried unsuccessfully to resume

water aerobics that I enjoy. The pain was too much.

On May 3 I visited Dr. McLaughlin again. She noted

abdominal pain and pain in my right buttock. She spoke to me

again about the H/O hypercoagulable state. She was also

pleased that I was scheduled to visit a hematology

specialist.

On May 4 I visited Dr. David Kaplin, Hematology. He noted

the evidence of a rectus sheath hematoma, sequel and

Homozygous Factor V mutation. He was careful how to cast

blame but said he certainly would not have recommended the

Lovenox shots since they thin the blood and area administered

right into the area close to the incisions. He said there are

articles speaking of the ill effects of using this

anticoagulant for abdominal surgeries. When I asked him--

could this have been caused by the fall he answered--caused,

yes perhaps but surely exasperated by the presence of blood

thinners. He said in a court of law would he be willing to

say one or the other was the cause? No, but surely both

played a part. I went home with more information than I had

come with.

Life went on--the pain was not gone. The swelling had

reduced but the muscle tone in my abdomen was very poor. I

tried resuming some exercise but experienced pain if I pushed

a bit to hard.

The pain in my right buttock improved through

recommendations from a physical therapist friend to do a set

of exercises in our home.

I can honestly say that I had pain, a kind of pulling

muscle pain, well into July 2017. I was cautious with lifting

and reaching. Sudden twisting caused a jolt. My stomach area

remained sensitive.

Today--I do have occasional pain in my abdomen area but I

have no way of determining if that is from the surgery and

invasion of four incision point and the one small incision

where the mesh was inserted OR the residual effects of the

hematoma.

In looking back it appears to me as if there were a

succession of errors that caused my pain and suffering.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the passing of my constituent in Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, Mr. Clyde Larson, of Hermantown. Mr. Larson was a pillar of the railroad labor community in Duluth, the Arrowhead, and throughout our state.

Across Northern Minnesota, we are all so very proud of the men and women who operate the BNSF, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific and short-line railways. The railroad workers of America--epitomized by Clyde Larson and so many thousands of others like him--help form the foundation of our Nation's economy. Whether they are moving passengers, iron ore and steel, grain, chemicals, forest product or intermodal goods, railroad train crews work around the clock under all weather conditions. They are silent sentinels protecting the public while serving industries and operating their trains across the land.

Clyde was 62 years of age when he passed unexpectedly. Born to Dexter and Wanda Larson, master bakers and small business owners from Fridley, Minnesota, the Larson family later moved to Hermantown, where Clyde graduated from high school in 1972 and met his bride, Anne Tessier, in 1977.

After high school and vocational training, Clyde went to work for Burlington Northern Railroad (BN), and then the mighty Duluth Masabi and Iron Range Railway (DM&IR) where he worked as a conductor until being severely injured in the early 1990's. During his railroad career, Clyde was elected Local Chairman for the United Transportation Union and rose by democratic election to the position of UTU General Chairman for the DM&IR.

General Chairman Larson helped countless railroad workers and protected one of the most valuable and lucrative steel-road contracts in the United States. Brother Larson presided over the DM&IR's Carnage pension contributions to steel-road workers, in addition to ensuring each member's rights under the United States Railroad Retirement pension and disability system. Thanks to his work ethic and devotion to his UTU members, thousands of active and retired railroad workers across northern Minnesota have lived independent lives, supported our Main Street economies, and helped to make Minnesota a better place in which to live, work, and do business.

Upon the CN Railway's takeover of the DM&IR in 2009, Clyde went to work for the UTU Designated Legal Counsel firm of Hunegs, LeNeave, and Kvas, where he served and protected all railroad craft workers. Clyde worked as an expert investigator, consultant, and advocate for railroad families when they were most vulnerable. Through his work to improve safety in the railroad work place, Clyde, along with his Union Brothers and Sisters, have made America's railroads a safer place to in which to work and prosper.

In true Minnesota tradition, Clyde honored justice, common decency, and maintained civility at all times. With a dry wit and cutting sense of humor, Clyde championed fair treatment for workers and railroad families. He was tremendously generous with his own time and resources to help all of those with less. Having known Clyde Larson as a husband, father, grandfather, brother, friend, mentor, and member of the St. Lawrence Church of Duluth, Moose Lodge, United Transportation Union, and Railroad Retiree's Association, the greater Duluth and Arrowhead community moves forward as richer Americans.

Clyde Larson is survived by his loving wife Anne, sons Scott, Eric, and Corey, with their wives Jen, Lindsey and Jean, his grandchildren Dexter and Gustafson, parents Dexter and Joanne Larson, and siblings Joel, Mikkel, Karen, and Kathy, along with their spouses and extended families.