Rule Votes, the CROmnibus and other ramblings on these efforts for your edification: Almost every bill that comes to the floor of the US House of Representatives comes via the Rules Committee where a Rule or playbook, if you will, determines how that bill proceeds to a vote. I say playbook because how each bill proceeds is different. For example, a bill can come under a structured rule, limiting the length of time of debate for both the opposing and supporting sides, as well as allowing the number of and type of amendments that are made in order - those amendments having to have been drafted and offered in the Rules Committee before being offered on the floor, thus getting a vote in Rules Committee first. Another type rule would be a closed rule, where the length of time for debate is set (and once it runs out - it runs out. Period), as well as no amendments can be offered. An example was the CROmnibus which was just voted on. It was a Closed rule and no amendments - like the Mulvaney amendment that many of us fought for - are made in order. Another example of a Rule would be an Open rule - one which is more traditional, allowing a bill to come to the floor, any and all amendments which are germane to the subject of the bill can be offered, and all debate is exhausted before final votes and passage. Exceptions to the necessity of Rule votes are what is known as bills voted on under Suspensions - or where the House suspends the rules and considers the bill for passage immediately. You see this happen on non-controversial bills like the naming of post offices. Many people confuse the procedural votes in the House with the procedural votes in the Senate, like a cloture vote. They are in some ways similar - but the two chambers handle them differently and they have different effects. On the CROmnibus bill, which leadership rushed a 1,600+ page bill, violating the promised 72 hour requirement for bills to be posted on-line - the bill had a closed rule, allowing, I believe, one hour of debate per side and no amendments were made in order. It takes a simple majority to adopt a rule (that means 218 votes if everyone is present and voting). One would assume that 100% of the minority party - in this case the Democrats - will vote against the rule. There are 201 Dems - so, to defeat a rule, there would need to be 100% of Dems and 17 Republicans. If the Rule vote fails to get 218 Yea votes, the bill cannot be brought up at that time for debate and passage. Is the bill Dead? Not necessarily. In the case of the CROmnibus, many of us knew that it would not die. (When I say us - just look at the variety of conservatives who voted for or against the rule. Members with conservative bonafides like Bridenstine, DeSantis, Mulvaney, Sanford, Gowdy, myself and others voted for the rule; guys like Jordan, Amash, Gosar and others voted against.) So, if the rule had failed - what would have happened? (Understand that this was an important funding bill at a year-end deadline, etc. - important to Leadership, etc.). Well, the Rules Committee would have simply met, a sweetner would have been added - like making a Democrat Amendment in order or allowing more debate or something - and there would have been another rule vote on the floor. (That isnt always the case - but I can tell you that, with what I witnessed going on with this bill, there would have been). I think that is the reason groups like Heritage, Freedomworks and Club for Growth did not score the rule vote, but instead signaled that they were scoring final passage votes. After a new rule was written, more Dems would have voted for it or the White House would have gotten involved and convinced more Dems to support the rule - just as you saw the WH get involved in final passage - and the bill would have moved for a final vote on the bill. I say all of this for those who asked Why did you vote for the procedural vote which allowed the bill to move forward? If you and one other had voted No - yall could have killed it. It wasnt gonna die. Our hope was to kill it on final passage, get more of a fight a lot sooner with a short-term CR or maybe the Mulvaney language added. And House leadership had a short-term CR drafted as a just in case scenario. What we witnessed after that defies explanation and sickens me. You saw Pelosi whipping Dem votes against the bill. Barack Obama was making personal calls to Dem members in support of the bill. Boehner and Company were whipping Republican members in favor of the bill and conservatives were standing firm and trying to get better language, shorter terms and a commitment from leadership to fight this Executive over-reach. But at the end of the day - Congress didnt fund Obamas Executive Amnesty. There is no new $ for that. We did not, however, restrict, cut or eliminate the funding either. We allowed DHS to continue to collect fees for USCIS and we funded DHS for around 60 days, whereas the rest of government is funded through Sept. 30th. We have another shot at this Executive action. We have been promised a fight in January. Many of us wanted it now, in a funding battle, when we felt our leverage was greater. It was a matter of tactics, I guess. I just ask for your support and prayers as we enter this next phase, with the Senate reinforcements arriving in January.
Posted on: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:54:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015