Revisions and extensions
Alright, so, what was that all about. Kevin described it pretty well. Last week was Congress's last week in town before adjourning for a month, until after the Labor Day holiday (if you think that's a long vacation (technically "district work period"), look at Britain: they're off until October). On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) remarked that this week was going to be an "unhappy week", and indeed, he was correct. The House had 88 roll call votes (to put this in perspective, the last session of Congress had 543 roll call votes in a year.), including 13 dilatory votes to either adjourn or approve the journal (it could be argued that one of these motions to approve the journal was in fact not dilatory, due to the actions of speaker pro tempore John Murtha (D-PA), but...in they end, they're all dilatory, because they always pass). It was a slow, ugly week. Tempers were already up by Thursday, after the slim passage of the State Childrens Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP; HR 3162) extension on Wednesday, and the passage of new rules for troop deployment (HR 3159) earlier on Thursday. SCHIP was especially hard for Republicans to take: the bill was never really debated in committee, after the ranking member of the committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) forced the clerk to read the entire 471 page bill. I can't imagine that Chairman Dingell was all too pleased about that, but they got it out of committee anyway. The Republicans wanted open rules (i.e. amendments allowed) for these bills, they got nothing of the sort. They wanted more time to debate them, they didn't get that either. In any case, by Thursday night, things were sufficiently charged that something bad could happen, and indeed it did. The record of what happened is contained in the cut.
On Thursday night, the USDA appropriations bill was under consideration, again, under a closed rule (which is rare for a spending bill, since they can consider amendments so quickly). The rule also did something to immediately pass 6 amendments en gros upon passage of the rule, which also upset the minority. Still, at the end of the day, it's a spending bill, and everyone except Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Mike Pence (R-IN) love spending. After a few hours of considering the bill and the amendments made in order by the rule (all 12 of them predictably failed), the Republicans got one more chance to amend the bill, in the form of the one motion to recommit with instructions made in order by the rule. This, like many motions to recommit, ordered the committee in question to report the bill back to the House "promptly," meaning that they actually have to meet before the bill comes back to the floor, which many members see as derailing the bill. This particular motion to recommit would have barred funds in the USDA spending bill from going to illegal aliens...somehow. I don't know how. (EDIT: Here's how:(1) Prohibits any funds in the act (including grant funds) from being used to employ an alien who is not authorized to be employed in the United States; and
(2) Prohibits any funds in the act for rental housing assistance programs to provide assistance to an alien not authorized to receive such assistance pursuant to 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
) In any case. Usually these motions are just like every other tactic used by the minority, only useful insofar as they delay things from happening. This is where the earlier posted Youtube video picks up. The vote stood at 214-214 when the chair prematurely reported the vote tally the first time, without bringing the gavel down to close the vote, not knowing that there were vote switching "cards" left to be processed by the clerk. The clerk then announced that two members had switched from "Aye" to "No", making the count then 212-216 (I want to say Lampson and Mitchell). The clerk then announced that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) had both changed their vote from "No" to "Aye" (this is what's happening when the clerk announces "Off aye, on no" or "Off no, on aye", literally telling the tally clerk to change which switch is turned on for a specific member on the giant tally board behind the dais that C-SPAN isn't allowed to show). The clerk then announced Mario Diaz-Balart's (R-FL...yes, again, it's all Florida's fault) name, recognizing that he had a vote switch, and the tally clerk switched the board from "No" to "Aye", making it 215-213 on the electronic boards...but the gavel then came down on the vote, and the chair announced that the total was 214-214, and the vote was closed. After this happened (after the vote was "final"), 3 other members changed their vote from Aye to No, making the final tally, and the one reported in the Record, 212-216 (as one congressional staffer noted, however, Minority Leader Boehner also tried to change his vote to preserve his right to move reconsideration, and that is not recorded). And chaos erupted on the floor. In what looked to be a show of goodwill, Steny Hoyer tried to vacate the vote and do it over, but many members saw this as trying to scrub the record of what has just happened. So instead, he moved to reconsider the vote, but by then too many members were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Over 100 members walked out of the chamber in protest (as a side note, the motion to reconsider passed, though was delayed due to the voting computer "breaking", and then the motion to recommit failed by voice vote, and then the bill passed...but by this time it was only a side note). An unhappy week indeed.
On Friday, the Republicans came ready to fight, bringing a bunch of members to challenge the approval of the journal when the House met at 9 AM. The only problem is that John Murtha was the speaker pro tempore, and was not going to let that happen. So when the Republicans "lost" the voice vote (when they outnumbered Democrats over 5-1 in the chamber at the time, so, whose voices Mr. Murtha was hearing, I don't know), Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) was understandably angry. The Democrat floor leader at the time asked for a recorded vote, and was given that recorded vote, when it was apparent that a sufficient second for such a vote did not exist, though as Mr. Murtha put it, "It's up to the Chair. And let me tell you this: The vote will show that the approval would be approved by the House, as it has been." Well, alright then. I guess Mr. Hoyer wasn't kidding when he remarked that "We run this House, not the parliamentarians!". More wrangling ensued (at one point, Mr. Sensenbrenner asked for a division (and was subsequently ignored), possibly the first time I've ever seen that asked for in the House), with the end result being that a bipartisan panel was established to investigate what went on on Thursday night. Friday continued, slowly, but without the kind of protests that were seen Thursday. However, at one point, during a vote to adjourn, the voting computers broke again, delaying proceedings by over an hour while they were fixed. On a week where nothing could go right, yet another thing went wrong. And by this time, the House had become a comedy of errors. How fortunate that it only had to be in session for one more day.
Some people point to this and say that this is what's wrong with politics. The partisan bickering, the game-playing during votes, the shady rulings by the chair, whatever. I guess that's what makes me different; I look at this and see what's entertaining about politics. If things always ran the way there were supposed to, the House would be as boring as...well, as the Senate. It also shows, I think, how fragile the current majority in the House is: if Republican dilatory tactics can almost work (and some have, if you go back to the beginning of this Congress, 15 motions to recommit have passed) you need better whips. A few people come out of this looking bad: Mike McNulty (D-NY), the chair on Thursday night, immediately comes to mind. John Murtha doesn't look that great, either. One could say that Steny Hoyer comes out of this looking bad, but I'm not going to, and here's why: through all of this, I have found myself liking Steny Hoyer. Not agreeing with him. But I don't think he came off that bad, especially if you watched him act on the floor. He was always calm, always level, always, well, likable. Which is not to say that he's always that way; I've seen him get very animated at times, and I've found myself not liking him very much at all. But in this last week, if I was a Democrat, I would be happy to have him as my Majority Leader. Some Republicans say that John Boehner comes out of this looking bad, because he should've been more agressive. Again, I disagree. While he could've pushed more, I think he sufficiently made his point (and got a committee to investigate what happened established, I mean, what more do you want?), and didn't want to look overly combative, especially when Steny Hoyer was across from him looking overly calm. Oh, one last thing on Hoyer: at least he recognizes, unlike the Speaker of the House, that a mistake was made and something needs to be done, and what happened was not just a misunderstanding, but a breach in procedure.
In the end, I think I'm going to stick to what I originally told a few of you as to why this all happened in the first place: "It must just be really hot in Washington. Like, it must just be really, asininely hot, and that's gotten people mad. I mean, the buildings are air conditioned, and the underground corridors that connect the buildings are air conditioned, but...people must just be pissed because it's hot." Seems as good a reason as any.
On Thursday night, the USDA appropriations bill was under consideration, again, under a closed rule (which is rare for a spending bill, since they can consider amendments so quickly). The rule also did something to immediately pass 6 amendments en gros upon passage of the rule, which also upset the minority. Still, at the end of the day, it's a spending bill, and everyone except Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Mike Pence (R-IN) love spending. After a few hours of considering the bill and the amendments made in order by the rule (all 12 of them predictably failed), the Republicans got one more chance to amend the bill, in the form of the one motion to recommit with instructions made in order by the rule. This, like many motions to recommit, ordered the committee in question to report the bill back to the House "promptly," meaning that they actually have to meet before the bill comes back to the floor, which many members see as derailing the bill. This particular motion to recommit would have barred funds in the USDA spending bill from going to illegal aliens...somehow. I don't know how. (EDIT: Here's how:(1) Prohibits any funds in the act (including grant funds) from being used to employ an alien who is not authorized to be employed in the United States; and
(2) Prohibits any funds in the act for rental housing assistance programs to provide assistance to an alien not authorized to receive such assistance pursuant to 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
) In any case. Usually these motions are just like every other tactic used by the minority, only useful insofar as they delay things from happening. This is where the earlier posted Youtube video picks up. The vote stood at 214-214 when the chair prematurely reported the vote tally the first time, without bringing the gavel down to close the vote, not knowing that there were vote switching "cards" left to be processed by the clerk. The clerk then announced that two members had switched from "Aye" to "No", making the count then 212-216 (I want to say Lampson and Mitchell). The clerk then announced that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) had both changed their vote from "No" to "Aye" (this is what's happening when the clerk announces "Off aye, on no" or "Off no, on aye", literally telling the tally clerk to change which switch is turned on for a specific member on the giant tally board behind the dais that C-SPAN isn't allowed to show). The clerk then announced Mario Diaz-Balart's (R-FL...yes, again, it's all Florida's fault) name, recognizing that he had a vote switch, and the tally clerk switched the board from "No" to "Aye", making it 215-213 on the electronic boards...but the gavel then came down on the vote, and the chair announced that the total was 214-214, and the vote was closed. After this happened (after the vote was "final"), 3 other members changed their vote from Aye to No, making the final tally, and the one reported in the Record, 212-216 (as one congressional staffer noted, however, Minority Leader Boehner also tried to change his vote to preserve his right to move reconsideration, and that is not recorded). And chaos erupted on the floor. In what looked to be a show of goodwill, Steny Hoyer tried to vacate the vote and do it over, but many members saw this as trying to scrub the record of what has just happened. So instead, he moved to reconsider the vote, but by then too many members were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Over 100 members walked out of the chamber in protest (as a side note, the motion to reconsider passed, though was delayed due to the voting computer "breaking", and then the motion to recommit failed by voice vote, and then the bill passed...but by this time it was only a side note). An unhappy week indeed.
On Friday, the Republicans came ready to fight, bringing a bunch of members to challenge the approval of the journal when the House met at 9 AM. The only problem is that John Murtha was the speaker pro tempore, and was not going to let that happen. So when the Republicans "lost" the voice vote (when they outnumbered Democrats over 5-1 in the chamber at the time, so, whose voices Mr. Murtha was hearing, I don't know), Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) was understandably angry. The Democrat floor leader at the time asked for a recorded vote, and was given that recorded vote, when it was apparent that a sufficient second for such a vote did not exist, though as Mr. Murtha put it, "It's up to the Chair. And let me tell you this: The vote will show that the approval would be approved by the House, as it has been." Well, alright then. I guess Mr. Hoyer wasn't kidding when he remarked that "We run this House, not the parliamentarians!". More wrangling ensued (at one point, Mr. Sensenbrenner asked for a division (and was subsequently ignored), possibly the first time I've ever seen that asked for in the House), with the end result being that a bipartisan panel was established to investigate what went on on Thursday night. Friday continued, slowly, but without the kind of protests that were seen Thursday. However, at one point, during a vote to adjourn, the voting computers broke again, delaying proceedings by over an hour while they were fixed. On a week where nothing could go right, yet another thing went wrong. And by this time, the House had become a comedy of errors. How fortunate that it only had to be in session for one more day.
Some people point to this and say that this is what's wrong with politics. The partisan bickering, the game-playing during votes, the shady rulings by the chair, whatever. I guess that's what makes me different; I look at this and see what's entertaining about politics. If things always ran the way there were supposed to, the House would be as boring as...well, as the Senate. It also shows, I think, how fragile the current majority in the House is: if Republican dilatory tactics can almost work (and some have, if you go back to the beginning of this Congress, 15 motions to recommit have passed) you need better whips. A few people come out of this looking bad: Mike McNulty (D-NY), the chair on Thursday night, immediately comes to mind. John Murtha doesn't look that great, either. One could say that Steny Hoyer comes out of this looking bad, but I'm not going to, and here's why: through all of this, I have found myself liking Steny Hoyer. Not agreeing with him. But I don't think he came off that bad, especially if you watched him act on the floor. He was always calm, always level, always, well, likable. Which is not to say that he's always that way; I've seen him get very animated at times, and I've found myself not liking him very much at all. But in this last week, if I was a Democrat, I would be happy to have him as my Majority Leader. Some Republicans say that John Boehner comes out of this looking bad, because he should've been more agressive. Again, I disagree. While he could've pushed more, I think he sufficiently made his point (and got a committee to investigate what happened established, I mean, what more do you want?), and didn't want to look overly combative, especially when Steny Hoyer was across from him looking overly calm. Oh, one last thing on Hoyer: at least he recognizes, unlike the Speaker of the House, that a mistake was made and something needs to be done, and what happened was not just a misunderstanding, but a breach in procedure.
In the end, I think I'm going to stick to what I originally told a few of you as to why this all happened in the first place: "It must just be really hot in Washington. Like, it must just be really, asininely hot, and that's gotten people mad. I mean, the buildings are air conditioned, and the underground corridors that connect the buildings are air conditioned, but...people must just be pissed because it's hot." Seems as good a reason as any.