Senate Rules Changes on Debt Ceiling Votes Might Avert Default

The Constitution says nothing about a budgetting process - the dent ceiling included, so can always be modified, and is from time to time. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority leader, has proposed a change in order to avoid the looming default.

The story is detailed in the Washington Post and Politico, and it is a but complex, but it allows the president to submit to Congress a request to increase the debt ceiling. Congress can pass a "denial of request" which coudl then be vetoed by the president. Since it takes a 2/3rds vote to overide the veto. the president's own party can ensure it will not be overriden. This means the debt ceiling is raised, and there is a voting record showign who voted for it and who voted against it.

Obviously this fits within our 2302 discussion of the internal rules of Congress and how they change over time. Since this is driven be expedience (and this asumes the proposal passes), its worth wondering how many rules in Congress were the result of similar circumstances.

I like to make the point in our discussion of the executive that its increase in size occurred incrementally over time and generally in response to specific historical events and problems. Most recently, the Department of Homeland Security was created due to 9/11. Without that event, the department would not exist.

Are congressional procedures the accumulation of various decisions made to deal with ceratin political impasses? Might be a good study.  

The Trouble With Open Floor Procedures

For 2302, a reminder of our discussion of floor procedures and the power of the Speaker. Jonathan Bernstein argues that Boehner's otherwise laudatory allowance of unlimited amendments on the floor of the House during the recent debate about spending on the 2011 budget has led to an inevitable budget showdown:

When Republicans brought the funding bill to the House floor, Boehner allowed for the introduction of hundreds of amendments, instead of following the usual procedure of having the House Rules Committee screen out most amendments. For Republican members of the House, it was a great opportunity to fulfill campaign promises by authoring amendments, many of which were approved, on all sorts of policy issues. Indeed, instead of just raising or lowering spending levels for federal agencies, these amendments prohibit the government from using any funds to carry out laws that House Republicans don’t like. So, for example, the funding bill now tells the EPA that it cannot regulate greenhouse gases; it tells the FCC that it may not implement net- neutrality regulations; it cuts funding from Planned Parenthood; and, perhaps most critically, it blocks money needed to carry out health care reform.

This means that, instead of sending the Senate a bill carefully tailored for a major budget fight, the House has delivered one containing a hodgepodge of policy fights. Consequently, it will be much harder to find common ground before time runs out to prevent a shutdown.

So the budget bill is not only about the budget. Due to the amendments that have been added to it, it is also about numerous other policy issues as well. Policy conflicts, Bernstein suggests, will lead to an inevitable stalemate and shut down. 

Dems like openness in GOP House - TheHill.com

Dems like openness in GOP House - TheHill.com

So does the WSJ:

The 112th House of Representatives spent the week debating how to fund the rest of fiscal 2011. In sharp contrast to his recent predecessors, Speaker John Boehner is sticking to his vow to make the chamber more open and accountable. His committee chairmen having presented a base spending bill, Mr. Boehner threw open the floor for full discussion. Some 600 amendments came pouring in.

"Chaos," "a headache," "turmoil," "craziness," "confused," "wild," "uncontrolled" are just a few of the words the Washington press corps has used to describe the ensuing late-night debates. There's a far better word for what happened: democracy. It has been eons since the nation's elected representatives have had to study harder, debate with such earnestness, or commit themselves so publicly. Yes, it is messy. Yes, it is unpredictable. But as this Presidents Day approaches, it's a fabulous thing to behold.

And about time. The Democrats' style of management—on ObamaCare, cap and trade, financial regulation, stimulus—was to secretly craft bills and ram through a vote, denying members a chance to read, to debate, to amend. They learned this from former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who infamously micro- managed his GOP majority from 2003-2005. The House had become a place where the leadership called all the shots and the majority saluted.

But this week the country witnessed the House coming together to argue over and exercise its foremost responsibility: power over the purse. And from the look of the amendments, both sides were eager to use that funding authority to put the Obama policy machine on notice.

Chubbing and Sunset Bills

Again from Burka Blog, background on two rules changes members of the Texas House are looking to change

The U.S. House Convenes with Republican Majority

And begin by setting House rules, as they are charged to do in the Constitution.

From the NYT:

Jubilant Republicans took control of the House on Wednesday and installed Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio as the new speaker before pushing through an overhaul of House rules intended to expedite their drive to dismantle the new health care law, cut federal spending and provide the tax cuts they see as a way to jump-start the economy. ...


Here's a link to the bill with the proposed changes, which we will detail later this semester. Here you can find detail regarding the process and the vote.

Tax Bill and DADT Blocked

An example of how legislation can be stopped -- even though majorities support them -- by blocking bill form reaching the floor.

- The Senate and DADT.
- The Senate and Aid for 9/11 Workers.
- The House and the Tax Bill.

The House, the Senate and the Surge

I've been remiss in not touching on the non-binding resolutions against sending additional troops to Iraq now in the House.

If we recall--since we in 2302 are now experts on House v Senate floor procedures--House rules allow for more control by the majority party which means that the Democratic leadership is in a better position to pass a non-binding resolution than are their compatriots in the Senate. 40 votes in the Senate is all that's needed to ensure that nothing goes forward that the minority wants to go forward.

Not so in the House.

When the dust settles we'll look backward and determine how the process evolved.