Pelosi tries to make changes to "Motion to Recommit"

[Dredly]

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosipowergrabbe.html

RE: Tyranny Is Not Transparency Or Openness

On the very first day of the 111th Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi instituted a rule change which, in the words of House Minority Leader John Boehner, “silences the voices of tens of millions of Americans by further shutting down open debate on the House floor and taking away the minority’s right to offer substantive policy alternatives on behalf of the millions of Americans they represent.”

I'll go further, changing the rule on the motion to recommit indicates that Pelosi and some Members of the present Leadership intend to institute a tyranny of the left in Congress. Shutting down honest debate... passing laws under the cover of darkness by tacking them on to larger bills...that's not the transparency and openness that Pelosi - and President-elect Obama for that matter - promised, now is it?

And for the record, left-wing spin on the matter does not stand up to scrutiny. According to The Washington Post; some liberals have accused conservatives in Congress of "abusing" the motion to recommit by putting "vulnerable members in a bind by having to choose between killing a bill or taking a politically unpalatable vote... ." Representative Barney Frank said conservatives in Congress are only "interested in game playing." Representative Louise Slaughter called the motion to recommit "a gimmick that was used to kill bills."

Shame on those evil conservatives in Congress! They should be flogged for demanding transparency! How dare they "play games" by stopping liberals from sneaking unpalatable legislation through Congress under the cover of darkness. How dare they "abuse" their authority and put liberals in a "bind" by demanding transparency. How dare they institute a "gimmick" to force liberals to actually vote on the laws they want to shove down the throats of the American people.

The American people know what Pelosi and some of the extreme leftist who now hold leadership positions in the majority party are trying to do. Give up the ghost. Give the American people the transparency and openness promised.

Sincerely,


(keep in mind the source is a very republican leaning production but its hard to argue with facts)

[Dredly]

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm

THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT
After the third reading of a bill (or resolution), but before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage of the bill (or resolution), a motion to recommit the bill, either with or without instructions, to the committee which originally reported it is in order. (Rule XVI and XVII) This motion is traditionally the right of the Minority and gives them one last chance to amend or kill the bill. Under the Republican changes to the rules of the House incorporated at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee may not report a special rule that denies a motion to recommit with instructions if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee (Rule XI, clause 4(b)). There are two types of motions to recommit under the rules of the House:

1. If the motion to recommit is without instructions, adoption of the motion has the practical impact of killing the bill without a final vote on its passage. In other words, the House has said, "send it back to the committee from whence it came. We don't want it as it is." The motion is not debatable if it does not include instructions.

2. If the motion to recommit is with instructions, the originating committee to which the bill is returned is bound to follow those instructions. Usually the instruction is for the committee to "report the bill back to the House forthwith with the following amendment." The text of the amendment is then given in full. In effect, this is a last chance for the Minority to make a germane change in the bill. The motion to recommit with instructions is debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided, but not controlled (which means neither side may yield time) between the proponent and the opponent, although the time may be extended to one hour at the request of the Majority Floor manager. If the bill is recommitted with such "forthwith" instructions, the bill is immediately reported back to the House on the spot with the amendment, the amendment is voted on, and the House proceeds to final passage of the bill. The bill does not disappear into some legislative limbo as some seem to think. It either is killed (by adoption of a straight motion to recommit without instructions) or comes immediately back (by adoption of the "forthwith" motion to recommit with instructions).

The motion to recommit is the prerogative of the Minority party. In order of priority, the Minority leader and then Minority party Members on the committee handling the bill, by seniority, have the right to offer the motion. They "qualify" to offer the motion if they state that they oppose the bill, at least in its current form. The Member who qualifies and offers the motion should also vote against final passage of the bill if the motion to recommit fails.

It is also worth noting that a motion to recommit need not instruct that an amendment be adopted. The motion may also direct that further hearings be held, or that an investigation be conducted and that a report of that investigation be made to the House, so long as the instruction is germane to the bill as amended. However, in the case of such general instructions, the committee cannot be required to report the bill back to the House forthwith, although it is certainly not precluded from doing so.

[Dredly]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ht-over-rules/

Another Article

House rule changes squander good will
Pelosi package angers GOP


The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn't survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation.

California Rep. David Dreier, ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, called the procedural changes engineered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, an "act of pure cynicism," in stark contrast to the promises of President-elect Barack Obama to work with Republicans to pass major bills.

"So much for the Obama vision," said Mr. Dreier, who said the changes would create "the most closed Congress in history."

House Democrats said the changes were needed to end what they said was an "abuse" of the previous rules by the minority, to torpedo bills likely to pass.

The most contentious rule change places new restrictions on motions to "recommit" a bill for new amendments to the committee that approved it. In practice, that motion often meant a lengthy or even permanent delay in passing the measure. Motions to recommit would still be possible, but the new rules allow the full House to reconsider the bill almost instantaneously.

Democrats, who hold a 257-178 majority in the House, argue that Republicans overused the tactic in the previous Congress, offering unrelated but politically charged amendments to bills in an effort to embarrass Democrats and derail an immediate vote. The new rules would give the minority the right to a vote on sending the bill back to committee without instructions on policy changes, or to ask for those policy changes while the bill remains on the House floor.

Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat and a member of the Rules Committee, called the change a "modernization" of the House rule. He said Republicans has used the recommit tactic 50 times in the two years since Democrats took control of the House in 2007, compared with 36 times when the Democrats were in the minority from 1995 to 2007.

He accused Republicans of playing "gotcha politics" with their recommit motions, calling it a "cynical way to do business."

But Rep. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican and the party's whip in the previous Congress, said on the House floor that Republicans were "the victims of their own success," accusing Democrats of changing the rules because the minority had been able to slow or alter bills over the past two years.

Because of the special rules regarding budgetary legislation, Republicans argued that the new restrictions on motions to recommit will hobble their ability to challenge tax increases that are included in larger, "must-pass" bills.

Unlike in the Senate, where the threat of a filibuster gives the minority strong bargaining leverage, the minority party in the House has relatively few tools to challenge the majority's will. Mr. Dreier noted that the recommit motion had been in place for 100 years, and he rejected Democratic claims that the new rules were a minor tweak to an obscure parliamentary proceeding.

In Congress, he said, "process is substance."

Another rule change approved Tuesday rolled back one of the signature reforms of the "Contract With America" agenda embraced by House Republicans when they seized control of the chamber in 1994. Mrs. Pelosi's package repealed a rule limiting committee chairmen to three terms - six years - as head of a House committee.

MICHAEL CONNOR/THE WASHINGTON TIMES Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, is sworn in Tuesday after being re-elected to the post by members of the 111th Congress in the Capitol. The rules changes she pushed through Tuesday prompted House Republicans to cry foul.

Republicans argued that without the term limit, committee chairs could establish individual fiefdoms in their areas of jurisdiction.

Doing away with the three-term restriction "will entrench a handful of members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said in a letter Monday to Mrs. Pelosi.

But House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said the practical effect of the term limit was to make races for coveted chairmanships a test of fund-raising ability, not legislative skill.

A motion to recommit the rules changes, offered by Mr. Dreier, lost on a vote of 249-174. The House then agreed to the new rules by a vote of 242-181, with six Democrats siding with the Republican minority on the final vote

[PocketProtector]

Surprise Surprise Surprise

Socialism is all about tyranny....that's the goal

[adymond]

What I don't understand is why it is acceptable for Democrats to do this, but when the Republicans had control I didn't hear about an attempt to do this sort of thing. I would imagine the media would have been shrieking if they had.

[Kenshin]

You can almost guarantee the new AWB will get tacked on somewhere and get passed immediately. Say hello to the United Socialist States of America.

[adymond]

I am waiting with baited breath to hear those who defend Chairman Obama and the Democratic leadership try to defend this and show me how this does not lead to more power in the hands of politicians and how they will be afraid to overreach and pass an AWB.

[ReefBlue]

What I don't understand is why it is acceptable for Democrats to do this, but when the Republicans had control I didn't hear about an attempt to do this sort of thing. I would imagine the media would have been shrieking if they had.

They certainly did. They tried to eliminate the fillibuster so once the majority voted on something, it would simply pass.

You need a majority of 60 to do that, the Republicans wanted to reduce that number to 50 since they had 55 seats. Did they think they'd keep the majority forever? Look what happened, they're out on their collective asses.

Had that passed, they would be completely shut down now since it is 58 or 59 democrats. I'm glad it didn't pass, but it would be sweet justice, but bad news in the long term.

[kht428]

Somewhere along the way the politicians have forgotten they represent us and not themselves. Their personal agendas are meaningless. The majority vote should be that which represents the people not the handful of rats that make up the house. I truly doubt that any of them (dem hierarchy) truly care what their constituents want, they only care about their own wants and needs. "of the people, by the people, for the people" is dead.

[FNG19]

They certainly did. They tried to eliminate the fillibuster so once the majority voted on something, it would simply pass.

That's not what the situation was about, though. Let's set the stage: In 2005, the GOP controlled both the Legislative and the Executive branches. The duly-elected President, George Bush (AKA: Bush-43) put forth approximately 10 nominees for various Judicial slots. Democrats, displeased with the Conservative choices that a (putatively) Conservative President made in to a (theoretically) Conservative-majority Senate, threatened to filibuster the choices so that they could not get an up-or-down vote. The Democrats had been using the filibuster (or threat thereof) to block many of the bills the GOP had put forth as well as judicial nominees. Since it was clear that this would be the way Democrats would deal with the issue, Bill Frist threatened to use some obscure parliamentary tactics to neuter the Filibuster and remove it as a viable option. Doing so, however, is serious, serious stuff, thus the term "Nuclear Option".

You need a majority of 60 to do that, the Republicans wanted to reduce that number to 50 since they had 55 seats.

Not true. The "50" number comes from the fact that the parliamentary tactics noted above required a simple majority. Breaking the filibuster directly (known as a "cloture vote" or "vote of cloture") requires 67 votes, I believe.

I'm glad it didn't pass, but it would be sweet justice, but bad news in the long term.

In one sentence, you've just summed up the reason for the current state of American Politics.