Rules Are Meant To…

Last night, mere minutes after arriving back home in DC, I was summoned by my partner to a special “midnight” meeting of the Rules Committee. He enticed me with the promise of very spirited debate between Members. And being one who loves to watch fireworks go off, I wasn’t about to miss it! 

Rather than delve too deeply into the finer points of legislative process, I will say only that the House as a whole consists of 435 members, of which my partner is one. Each member is assigned to a Committee, and most serve on two to three. The logic behind Committees is self-evident: that is, how does a body consisting of so few take account of the innumerable bills that come up for debate in the course of one legislative session? It would be impossible, but for the fact that the Speaker of The House, at the beginning of the life cycle of any bill, assigns it to its relevant Committees. If, for example, a bill relates to the expenditure of government money, she routs it to the “Appropriations Committee”. If a bill pertains to the war in Iraq, it is channeled to the ”Armed Services Committee”. And in the case of my partner, he sits on the “Education and Labor” and “Rules” Committees. 

Rules is an exceptional Committee assignment for a Freshman Member. Because it holds such sway over the parameters of how a bill is discussed, it was once an “Exclusive Committee”, meaning that its membership required  the participation of its Members to the exclusion of any other committees. Happily, it is no longer so possessive of its Members, and they are at liberty to serve on, at most, one other committee.  

Rules  is the final stop for any bill before it arrives on the House floor. And the jurisdiction of the Rules Committee is to determine, quite literally, the “rules” under which the bill may be discussed once it comes before the Committee of The Whole. Will members of the House be permitted to submit amendments? If so, how many? How long can these amendments be discussed? So on and so forth.

Last night, Rules met to discuss an upcoming Appropriations Bill. Unique to this discussion, however, was the proposal that the bill be permitted to come up for a vote with what is called a “closed” rule. In other words, only a finite number of amendments would be permitted, and most of these to originate with the Democrats. In the history of Appropriations bills, this particular proposal is almost unprecedented. Discussion is always permitted, and members on the House floor are never limited in the number of amendments they can offer. This is especially vexing for the Republican members, who had no doubt counted upon introducing as many changes as they saw fit. My most elementary understanding of the logic behind the proposal, is that the Republicans requested an unusually high number of amendments.  Thus, the Democrats, who are currently a majority, sought to limit discussion, which could prolong passage of the bill.

My partner wasn’t lying when he promised impassioned arguments on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans consist of less than half the Committee (in which the majority always makes up two times the minority plus 1; this is done to ensure that the majority is able to overcome minority opposition if the need arises, and it often does!)

I could go into details over what precisely was said, but there is no need to get excessive. Instead, I’d like to make an amusing observation that the culture of Washington is somewhat old-fashioned. The manner of address between members is exceedingly formal and fraught with ceremony. My partner is referred to as, “The Gentleman from Colorado.” And this format is used for all men in the Congress. All women Members are referred to as “The Gentlelady”. These rules of engagement are supremely amusing to witness, if for no other reason than that they often provide a counterpoint to the way a member actually feels. Though a Democrat is bound to thank a Republican for speaking, it is done all in the spirit of civility, and for no other reason besides.  ”I would like to thank my friend, the Gentlelady from X, for yielding. But I must respectfully disagree on the grounds that…”

Translation: “Are you a madwoman?!”

It is easy to imagine how laugh-out-loud funny it can be, when the debate reaches a fever pitch, as it did last night, and members are at the very verge of screaming, but still they adopt the niceties of social etiquette and refer to one another as Gentlemen and Gentleladies. If anything attests the absurdity of all that we do as civilized animals, it is that we attempt to subvert our strongest feelings and paint them over with the appearance of composure.