On GOP Rigging

The House GOP’s Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown

Late on the night of Sept. 30, with the federal government just hours away from shutting down, House Republicans quietly made a small change to the House rules that blocked a potential avenue for ending the shutdown.

It went largely unnoticed at the time. But with the shutdown more than a week old and House Democrats searching for any legislative wiggle room to end it, the move looms large in retrospect in the minds of the minority party.

“What people don’t know is that they rigged the rules of the House to keep the government shut down,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, told TPM in an interview. “This is a blatant effort to make sure that the Senate bill did not come up for a vote.”

Chris Van Hollen’s floor speech

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), presiding over the chamber, told Van Hollen that the rule he was asking to use had been “altered” and he did not have the privilege of bringing that vote to the floor. In the ensuing back and forth, Chaffetz said the recently passed House Resolution 368 trumped the standing rules. Where any member of the House previously could have brought the clean resolution to the floor under House Rule 22, House Resolution 368 — passed on the eve of the shutdown — gave that right exclusively to the House majority leader, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia.

Under the standing rules of the House, any member can make a “privileged” motion “to dispose of any amendment” when a “stage of disagreement” between the House and Senate “has been reached on a bill or resolution.” That privilege, though rarely used, offers a roundabout way for the minority party to force votes on the floor.

But in the last hour of Sept. 30, Republicans on the House Rules Committee altered the rule governing the CR debate so that such a motion “may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.”

Explaining the change, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) made no attempt to disguise the Republicans’ motivations. The alteration was made, he said, to prevent Democrats from bringing the Senate’s “clean” CR to the floor, just as Republicans were calling for a conference on the competing bills.

“There are rules related to privileged motions that could take place almost effective immediately, and we’re trying to go to conference,” Sessions said.

“I understand you are, but that doesn’t tell me why you changed the regular order so that only Mr. Cantor can do that under the rule,” Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), senior Democrat on the panel, responded.

“There could be a motion as early as tonight [and] a conference would be avoided,” Sessions said. “And we want a conference. We want to have an actual discussion.”

“Well, I think you’ve taken that away,” Slaughter said of the motion option.

“That’s what I’m saying, we took that away,” Sessions said.

“Oh mercy, it just gets deeper and deeper,” Slaughter said.

The rule passed out of the committee with every Republican voting for it and every Democrat voting against.

Share:

Related Articles

8 thoughts on “On GOP Rigging

  1. Thanks PJ.

    Wish the MSM would cover that the House Republicans “appropriated” every penny of pre-sequester spending. By law, that money has to be spent. No one in the GOP had the guts to go back and amend the appropriations that lobbyists paid them to make. Then to posture as fiscally responsible, the House Republicans refuse to lift the debt ceiling.

    Per Sam Stein, Harry Reid’s trying to “undo” the sequester.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/government-shutdown-talks_n_4093474.html

    That would increase federal spending back to the levels appropriated. My guess is that Scott Walker is begging the GOP to “undo” the sequester, because that federal money will marginally boost the Wisconsin economy.

    If Harry can “undo” the sequester, I’m assuming that “chaining the CPI,” is off the table. #pleaseharry

    Another piece of Congressional intrigue might save us, “The STOCK Act Gets Gutted; Here’s Why You Should Care.” http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/stock-act-gets-gutted-why-care-173159298.html

    In 2012 Obama signed “the Stock Act,” which prohibited Congress, Federal employees from “insider trading.” On 15 April 2013 Congress and Obama gutted it. That strongly suggests that all the members and their families and their friends have huge exposure to the equity markets.

    OT, Jane Hamsher tweeted this earlier today: “Harry Reid proposes lifting debt ceiling for 9 months, allowing Tea Party to drive GOP poll numbers down right before election. I’m down.”

    If Mike Tate’s paying attention, imho he should consider doing everything he can to support this timing. Could saturating negative national publicity, such as the GOP is getting today, hand Wisconsin Democrats both houses of the legislature and the Governor’s mansion?

    1. Yes. Negative publicity carried in this state’s Republican Party majority in and it can float them out like so much used up, water-logged flotsam and jetsam.

    2. Hey John,

      I suspect chained CPI is off the table for now, but it may return to the table later if it gets to a yes with chipping away at sequestration spending + adding revenue. It would seem, for the moment, it won’t be a concession for reopening the government or raising the debt ceiling.

      I hope Reid doesn’t go with a 9 month debt limit increase for election purposes – that would signal a craven stance of non-governance, a confirmation that Dems assent to GOP tactics and succumb to the GOP’s field of choice. Hopefully Reid will have more sense. At the same time, 9 months as a concession for something with more long term value could be strategically advantageous given GOP intransigence.

      As to negative PR – the GOP offers no shortage of it and Priebus has indicated that the GOP will be shifting back to the culture war so I should think there will be no shortage of material from which to draw upon from now to 2014. Whether or not recent publicity could return both state houses and governor’s mansion as you suggest is an open question. I suppose it depends on how heated or inescapable it gets. At this point, I’m not convinced that any specifics of any message matter as much as tone and mood and appetite for political warfare. I suspect the appetite for political warfare and war-weary induced apathy will play just as significant a role.

      As to Mike Tate – I wouldn’t view him as the all-powerful, authoritarian Democratic anti-god capable of controlling all aspects of the democratic process as much as others might. The Democratic Party criticizes Walker daily and appropriately. I should think Tate’s energies would be better spent elsewhere – deepening the bench everywhere in Wisconsin by grooming and recruiting a diverse array of potential candidates, strategically and with targeted goals.

      Thanks for the links. What did you make of the GOP’s rigging maneuver?

    1. Yep. No surprise there. Someone is going to make a helluva lot of dough if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. When it all shakes down these guys aren’t going to be exonerated by a tweet.

  2. Actually, 7 Democrats voted for House Resolution 368. Why would Democrats vote for a resolution that takes away their power to call a Senate bill up for a simple vote? And assign that power to the Republican majority leader, exclusively?! One of these 7 is from my state and my district. He’s got some explaining to do, as should they all. Here’s the list:

    Ron Barber AZ-2
    John Barrow GA-12
    Dan Maffei NY-24
    Sean Patrick Maloney NY-18
    Jim Matheson UT-4
    Mike McIntyre NC-7
    Collin Peterson MN-7

    1. Thanks, Charles. Had those 7 Democrats initiated the Shutdown there’d probably be something more to their votes than foolish gauging of political waters. And there still may be more to those votes than meets the eye. I suspect there is. Bottom line – they’re just as guilty as the GOP hijackers. Their votes can’t be regarded as a genuinely “bipartisan” effort by any reasonable standard, but their votes do illustrate how a radicalized GOP shifts not only Republicans farther to the right end of the political spectrum, but the Democratic Party as well. What we see here is the filthy tainting of the democratic process itself that comes of dirty politicking.

      Indeed they do have some explaining to do. I fear, however, that explanation may fail to satisfy. I’ll be very interested to see how and if these guys answer to both their Democratic and Conservative constituents.

Comments are closed.