A comparison between the Democratic-led 117th House of Representatives (2021–2022) and the Republican-led 118th House (2023–2024) illustrates a stark contrast in legislative volume, strategic priorities, and institutional stability. The transition from unified Democratic control to a razor-thin, divided Republican majority dramatically altered the speed and scope of federal lawmaking.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s recent outrageous remarks claiming the 119th House of Representatives (2025-2026) was historically very productive is just a lie designed to mollify the Republican base.

Legislative Output and Policy Scope (117th Congress)

• High Volume and Major Enactments: Operating alongside a Democratic Senate and White House, the 117th House passed hundreds of major bills, with dozens becoming landmark statutes. Key enactments included the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
• Policy Focus: Democratic leadership prioritized post-pandemic economic recovery, clean energy investment, domestic semiconductor manufacturing, healthcare expansion, and gun safety reform.
• Party Cohesion: Despite holding a slim majority, House leadership maintained tight party discipline to pass sweeping spending and policy packages through budget reconciliation and targeted bipartisan deals.

Gridlock and Intra-Party Divisions (118th Congress)

• Historic Legislative Slowdown: Operating under divided government, the 118th House produced one of the lowest numbers of enacted laws in modern American history, yielding roughly 200 completed bills over two years.
• Internal Leadership Struggles: The House Republican majority was defined by severe internal friction, highlighted by a 15-ballot election for Speaker Kevin McCarthy, his unprecedented removal via a motion to vacate, and weeks of legislative paralysis.
• Focus on Essential Deals and Messaging Bills: Enacted legislation was largely restricted to essential compromise bills—such as the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (raising the debt ceiling), short-term stopgap spending measures, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and foreign aid packages. Other House-passed legislation, including strict border security and energy production bills, served primarily as partisan policy statements that stalled in the Democratic Senate.

Underlying Dynamics

The stark difference in output stems from both electoral conditions and structural incentives. While the 117th House operated as an engine for an incoming administration’s agenda, the 118th House functioned primarily as an opposition chamber, using committee oversight and funding deadlines to counter executive policies. Ultimately, the contrast underscores how internal caucus cohesion and unified executive-legislative control dictate the boundary between rapid policymaking and systemic gridlock.

Johnson’s Delusion

House Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly claimed the current 119th Congress is among the “most productive” in U.S. history, though critics and data suggest the opposite.

Johnson has used several variations of this boast across different platforms. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed and on Fox Business, he stated, “We’ve had one of the most productive Congresses in the history of the institution.” More recently, in an interview with Politico, he claimed, “This has been one of the most successful Congresses in the modern era, maybe top ten of all time.” He also told reporters, “History will record this will be one of the most successful and productive Congresses in the history of the institution, since 1789.”

However, these claims are disputed by legislative data. According to GovTrack, only 1% of bills introduced in the House have been individually enacted into law, a rate described as the worst since the 93rd Congress (1973–1974). Critics, including political reporters and the MS NOW blog, have noted that the 119th Congress set a modern record for the fewest bills signed into law and fewest votes cast, contradicting Johnson’s assertions of historic productivity. This is completely in keeping with Huizenga’s historic failure to do much of anything to help the people of Southwest Michigan.