Members of Congress, apparently happy to be overshadowed by Presidential campaign controversies, wrapped up their final pre-election sessions by drawing the least possible attention to themselves.

In doing so, however, they may have set up a very interesting lame-duck session for themselves after the November election.

As previewed here a month ago, Republican leaders in both chambers were eager to avoid a government shutdown that would have started Saturday, with the start of the federal fiscal year, if a Continuing Resolution (CR) was not passed in time.

Democrats were able to use that political leverage to get a few of their top priorities—including a promise to include infrastructure funding for Flint, Mich., in the upcoming Water Resources Development Act.

Democrats also got their wish for a short-term CR, which provides funding only until December 9. Conservative Republicans—many of whom ultimately voted against the compromise CR—wanted it to go well into 2017, to ensure a low level of funding through most of the fiscal year.

But Democrats came away unhappy with the small amount of funding included for opioid prevention and treatment, and to fight Zika infection.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was also particularly miffed about a provision protecting corporations from disclosing political donations.

In its final version, the CR easily passed the Senate despite no votes from both conservatives and liberals—including both Massachusetts senators, and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, angry in particular over the opioid funding, voted against cloture but for final passage.

The House then quickly gave its OK, despite dissents from dozens of its most conservative members.

It may not have been pretty, but it was good enough to keep Congress from making news to compete with the presidential campaign shenanigans.

That’s important for Republicans in the Senate, who are hoping to keep their majority by winning races in several states—including New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada—where Donald Trump may be heading to defeat.

Lately, polls seem to show that Republican Senate candidates in those states may be doing better than Trump. A similar hope for ticket-splitting is expected to keep Republicans in a strong majority in the House.

So, with no desire to rock the boat, Republicans also shut down plans to attempt impeachment against the Internal Revenue Service commissioner. Other potentially controversial bills were set aside for later.

But, in what was viewed as a political no-brainer, Congress not only passed a bill allowing 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi government, it easily overrode President Barack Obama’s veto. Democrats and Republicans alike flocked to support it. Even Hillary Clinton broke with Obama by declaring herself in favor.

Then, having secured the one headline they wanted, Congress immediately suggested undoing what they had done.

Almost immediately after making the law official, Senate and House leaders claimed to be just realizing what Obama’s administration had argued all along: that the law could open floodgates on sovereign immunity, inviting retaliatory suits from other nations against American soldiers.

By Friday—with their members long gone to spend the next six weeks campaigning back home—House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that they would look into fixing the bill by the end of the year.

That means getting it done in the short lame-duck session, after the November election but before the new Congress—and new president—get sworn in.

That’s often a difficult time to get much of anything done, especially if one party knows that, as a result of the election, they will have a better hand to play if they just wait until January.

Yet Congress has also now forced itself into dealing with government funding during that lame-duck session, by setting the CR to expire on December 9. And, there are plenty of other bills lying around that they’ve been putting off to avoid election controversy.

Looks like they’ll be paying then for trying to avoid the spotlight now.

Not everybody was keeping quiet, however. Before leaving D.C., Massachusetts lawmakers took time to deliver a high-profile, high-decibel one-two punch combination to Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf.

Stumpf was summoned to appear before both Senate and House committees, to account for his bank’s misdeeds with customer accounts. More than 5,300 employees have been fired, for juggling funds among millions of fake accounts to meet sales goals.

First came Warren, whose Banking Committee got its crack at Stumpf on September 21. In a withering tirade, Warren told Stumpf he should resign, accused him of “gutless leadership,” and demanded: “You should be criminally investigated.”

It was the type of populist-lawyer performance her fans adore, and video of it sped around social media. The 18-minute clip has been viewed an extraordinary 11 million times on Facebook.

But if anything, Stumpf got an even harsher greeting this past Thursday, from Rep. Michael Capuano on the House Financial Services Committee.

Where Warren merely suggested criminal investigation, Capuano was ready to render a verdict. Comparing Wells Fargo’s executives to those at Enron, he declared Stumpf “clearly and unequicocally guilty” of conspiracy to commit fraud, and other crimes.

"Why shouldn’t you be in jail?” the Somerville congressman asked. “What’s the difference between you and a bank robber?”

Those quips earned Capuano’s face a spot at the top of the next day’s New York Times business section.

Boston Rep. Stephen Lynch, who sits on the same committee, was equally aggressive. Lynch told Stumpf that federal prosecutors should use RICO statutes, intended for mafia enterprises, against Wells Fargo management.

“You’ve covered basically every aspect of fraud in your bank over the last five years,” Lynch said.

Capuano and Lynch also chastised Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen for not doing enough about Wells Fargo, when she appeared before the committee the day before Stumpf.