Information about proposed changes in the Republican Conference (the group of Congressmen affiliated to the Republican Party - the equivalent of British Labour's PLP)rules - and House Rules
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 December 2010
Monday, 15 November 2010
Rule V House of Representatives
The current Rule V deals with broadcasting of the House. Responsibility for a system of "closed circuit viewing of floor proceedings" available throughout offices and rooms in the Capitol and the House Office Buildings - and for a system of "complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting and recording of the proceedings of the House" rests with the Speaker.
As was forcefully pointed out on a recent programme - the cameras in the House are not C-SPAN's, but those of the House. C-SPAN takes the feed and broadcasts it, but has no control over the cameras.
In May 1984 a row over the cameras became known as "Camscam". Tip O'Neill was angered when Newt Gingrich used a "special order speech" (equivalent to the British 'adjournment debates at the end of the day's business) to attack some Democrats and his suggestion that they didn't have the courage to rise and defend themselves. Of course they weren't there - as is usual during "special order speeches" only those making them were actually in the House. But the public couldn't see that - as the camera only showed the person speaking. It was a trick Gingrich had often used. On this occasion Speaker O'Neill was so incensed that he called the Chair of the committee which administered the television system and told him to have a caption written to inform the audience that the House had completed its legislative work and was in special order time. He also told the Chair to have the cameras pan the chamber and show the empty House.
It was held that under the Rule, the Speaker had the authority to do this. But O'Neill failed to tell the Republicans what he was doing. Two days later O'Neill's instruction was put into action during a special order speech. It was spotted on the monitors in the Republican Cloakroom and a note was passed to the Republican then speaking, Bob Walker, once of Gingrich's group - who attacked the Speaker's actions live on air. A massive row broke out when the House next met and Speaker O'Neill said he took the action because Gingrich had misled viewers by "stepping aside, debating and pointing - as if there were people on the floor - asking. 'why don't you get up and answer?' He added 'a more low thing I have never seen'.
This last remark played in Gingrich's hands. He demanded a 'point of personal privilege' on the following day to respond. In the midst of that statement tempers flared and then, in the words of John A Farrell, "O'Neill lost it. "My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress." This was a personal insult - and Trent Lott, the Minority Whip rose and demanded "that the Speaker's words be taken down." In Lott's words ['Herding Cats'] "with that, all action on the floor of the House stops automatically. The words were taken down and handed to the Parliamentarian. I knew we had O'Neill. The chamber grew as quiet as a church. Mobley (in the Chair) had to rule that his colleague, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was out of order. That ruling brought a swift and difficult punishment: O'Neill was immediately barred from the floor for the rest of the day. He couldn't utter another word.
I let the Democrats stew for a couple of minutes, then moved that the speaker's words be expunged and that the House resume its normal business' (Farrell described it thus 'Lott, with gleeful magnanimity, asked that the Speaker be absolved of that humiliating punishment' [of being banned from speaking for the rest of the day])
- - - - - - - - - -
According to Rule V broadcasts made available under the rule may not be used for political or commercial purposes
As was forcefully pointed out on a recent programme - the cameras in the House are not C-SPAN's, but those of the House. C-SPAN takes the feed and broadcasts it, but has no control over the cameras.
In May 1984 a row over the cameras became known as "Camscam". Tip O'Neill was angered when Newt Gingrich used a "special order speech" (equivalent to the British 'adjournment debates at the end of the day's business) to attack some Democrats and his suggestion that they didn't have the courage to rise and defend themselves. Of course they weren't there - as is usual during "special order speeches" only those making them were actually in the House. But the public couldn't see that - as the camera only showed the person speaking. It was a trick Gingrich had often used. On this occasion Speaker O'Neill was so incensed that he called the Chair of the committee which administered the television system and told him to have a caption written to inform the audience that the House had completed its legislative work and was in special order time. He also told the Chair to have the cameras pan the chamber and show the empty House.
It was held that under the Rule, the Speaker had the authority to do this. But O'Neill failed to tell the Republicans what he was doing. Two days later O'Neill's instruction was put into action during a special order speech. It was spotted on the monitors in the Republican Cloakroom and a note was passed to the Republican then speaking, Bob Walker, once of Gingrich's group - who attacked the Speaker's actions live on air. A massive row broke out when the House next met and Speaker O'Neill said he took the action because Gingrich had misled viewers by "stepping aside, debating and pointing - as if there were people on the floor - asking. 'why don't you get up and answer?' He added 'a more low thing I have never seen'.
This last remark played in Gingrich's hands. He demanded a 'point of personal privilege' on the following day to respond. In the midst of that statement tempers flared and then, in the words of John A Farrell, "O'Neill lost it. "My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing I have ever seen in my 32 years in Congress." This was a personal insult - and Trent Lott, the Minority Whip rose and demanded "that the Speaker's words be taken down." In Lott's words ['Herding Cats'] "with that, all action on the floor of the House stops automatically. The words were taken down and handed to the Parliamentarian. I knew we had O'Neill. The chamber grew as quiet as a church. Mobley (in the Chair) had to rule that his colleague, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was out of order. That ruling brought a swift and difficult punishment: O'Neill was immediately barred from the floor for the rest of the day. He couldn't utter another word.
I let the Democrats stew for a couple of minutes, then moved that the speaker's words be expunged and that the House resume its normal business' (Farrell described it thus 'Lott, with gleeful magnanimity, asked that the Speaker be absolved of that humiliating punishment' [of being banned from speaking for the rest of the day])
- - - - - - - - - -
According to Rule V broadcasts made available under the rule may not be used for political or commercial purposes
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Rules
Each of the Chambers that this blog focuses upon has its own rules. In Congress the main place where these rules can be found (don't be misled into thinking that all "rules" are to be found in the rulebook - there are other places they can be found - and some are "unwritten rules") are the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Rules of the Senate. At Westminster the similar documents are the Standing Orders (there are Standing Orders for Private Business, but I will be looking at and linking to the Standing Orders for Public Bussness) of the House of Commons [recent amendments] and the House of Lords.
In a new series on Washminster, I will be working through the rules/standing orders. It has struck me in my recent reading of leading characters in the four Houses, that learning the rules of the relevant chamber has been key to their personal and political sucess. As Donald C Bacon wrote of Nicholas Longworth, he "buckled down to learn the House's rules and precedents as well as its customs and traditions". Longworth became Speaker - and one of the House Office Buildings is named after him.
I will use the "labels" - HoC Standing Orders, HoL Standing Orders, HoR Rules, Senate Rules - to assist you should you need to search for these series using the search engine.
One of the most obvious differences is in the number of Rules/Standing Orders - actually it is mainly a matter of style - while the Commons has a different numbered rule for each committee - the House of representatives puts all the committees under Rule X.
For the record -
House of Commons 163 (actually194 [additional rules, for example 152A, 152B, etc minus 4 repealed])
House of Lords 86
Senate 45
House of Representatives 29
In a new series on Washminster, I will be working through the rules/standing orders. It has struck me in my recent reading of leading characters in the four Houses, that learning the rules of the relevant chamber has been key to their personal and political sucess. As Donald C Bacon wrote of Nicholas Longworth, he "buckled down to learn the House's rules and precedents as well as its customs and traditions". Longworth became Speaker - and one of the House Office Buildings is named after him.
I will use the "labels" - HoC Standing Orders, HoL Standing Orders, HoR Rules, Senate Rules - to assist you should you need to search for these series using the search engine.
One of the most obvious differences is in the number of Rules/Standing Orders - actually it is mainly a matter of style - while the Commons has a different numbered rule for each committee - the House of representatives puts all the committees under Rule X.
For the record -
House of Commons 163 (actually194 [additional rules, for example 152A, 152B, etc minus 4 repealed])
House of Lords 86
Senate 45
House of Representatives 29
Friday, 16 October 2009
Why Procedure Matters
The Rules and procedures of legislative bodies seem a bore to most people - even many legislators themselves. However the canny legislator (and staffer; and campaigner) takes time to learn the rules. Why? - a few choice quotes -Representative Bill Steiger (A Congressional Reformer) “procedure is substance.”
House Republican Leader Bob Michel, “Procedure hasn’t simply become more important than substance—it has, through some strange alchemy, become the substance of our deliberations. Who rules House procedures, rules the House—and to a great degree, rules the kind and scope of political debate in this country.”
Dean of the House, Democratic Congressman John Dingell of Michigan “"I'll let you write the substance . . . and you let me write the procedure, and I'll screw you every time."
(Hearings on H.R. 2327 Before the Subcomm. on Admin. Law and Governmental Relations of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 98 Cong., 1st Sess. 312 (1983)).
...and it can be quite interesting too!
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Motions to Recommit
Rules changes in the House of Representatives are likely to be hotly contested today. One of the most controversial is in the bill H.Res. 5 Section 2 (g) - Instructions in the Motion to Recommit.
There are three variants of the motion to recommit.
The first is a "straight" motion which would have the effect of sending the bill back to committee. Currently such a motion is not debated, but a vote is taken.
The second is a recommital motion which has instructions to the committee, which is to be considered "forthwith". The practice is that, if the motion is passed, the Committee chair must report the bill back to the House immediately, without the bill leaving the Chamber, but including any amendment given by the instructions.
The third type has instructions, but no requirement to report back "forthwith". The motion may include the term 'promptly', but this has no effect.
Where instructions are given, the motion to recommit can be debated for up to 10 minutes.
These motions are procedural devices which give opponents of a measure another chance to attack the bill. Cleverly used, they can be used by the minority party to create an embarrassing dilemma for majority members who favour a specific amendment, but back the bill generally. A motion to recommit without 'forthwith' instructions forces the majority member either to vote for - which could have the practical effect of killing the bill (As John Boehner said in 2003 - "For those of you who are not familiar with the nuance, that means the bill is dead forever") or voting against - which puts into the public record that the member has voted against a policy he (or his constituents) strongly support. At election time this allows an opponent to run ads suggesting the member opposes something, when in fact they didn't want to kill the whole bill.
In the last Congress the use of recommittal motions skyrocked. in the 106th Congress they were used on only 27% of occasions - and the average from 1989-2008 is 46%. In the 110th Congress they were used 78% of the time. 'Non forthwith' variants were used on 47 occasions - (there have only been 121 uses in the 10 Congresses after 1989!
The proposed change would disallow 'Non forthwith' motions which included instructions to the committee. The minority could still put down straight recommital motions (which could kill the bill, but does not limit the committees freedom of action) or 'forthwith' instructions. Debate would be allowed for all motions. (Currently straight motions are not debatable).
There is an excellent CRS paper at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34757.pdf by Megan S Lynch. Details of the rule changes proposed are available at http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4116
There are three variants of the motion to recommit.
The first is a "straight" motion which would have the effect of sending the bill back to committee. Currently such a motion is not debated, but a vote is taken.
The second is a recommital motion which has instructions to the committee, which is to be considered "forthwith". The practice is that, if the motion is passed, the Committee chair must report the bill back to the House immediately, without the bill leaving the Chamber, but including any amendment given by the instructions.
The third type has instructions, but no requirement to report back "forthwith". The motion may include the term 'promptly', but this has no effect.
Where instructions are given, the motion to recommit can be debated for up to 10 minutes.
These motions are procedural devices which give opponents of a measure another chance to attack the bill. Cleverly used, they can be used by the minority party to create an embarrassing dilemma for majority members who favour a specific amendment, but back the bill generally. A motion to recommit without 'forthwith' instructions forces the majority member either to vote for - which could have the practical effect of killing the bill (As John Boehner said in 2003 - "For those of you who are not familiar with the nuance, that means the bill is dead forever") or voting against - which puts into the public record that the member has voted against a policy he (or his constituents) strongly support. At election time this allows an opponent to run ads suggesting the member opposes something, when in fact they didn't want to kill the whole bill.
In the last Congress the use of recommittal motions skyrocked. in the 106th Congress they were used on only 27% of occasions - and the average from 1989-2008 is 46%. In the 110th Congress they were used 78% of the time. 'Non forthwith' variants were used on 47 occasions - (there have only been 121 uses in the 10 Congresses after 1989!
The proposed change would disallow 'Non forthwith' motions which included instructions to the committee. The minority could still put down straight recommital motions (which could kill the bill, but does not limit the committees freedom of action) or 'forthwith' instructions. Debate would be allowed for all motions. (Currently straight motions are not debatable).
There is an excellent CRS paper at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34757.pdf by Megan S Lynch. Details of the rule changes proposed are available at http://www.rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4116
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
