The Republican House membership might try a vicious strategy to stop the auto bailout bill. Typically, bills go through the rules committee in the House, which controls floor time and which amendments are allowed to be proposed and voted on. However, Republicans use a tactic called a 'Motion to Recommit', which is a motion allowing the minority to add an amendment or kill the bill outright by sending it back to the committee out of which it was reported. During the Delay era, Republicans were ruthless about MTRs, and they were routine matters that went down by party line pretty much every single time. During the Pelosi era, Republicans propose MTRs and Blue Dogs often threaten to vote with the Republicans, so they are used to overwhelm Pelosi's control of the chamber.
Tonight, Republicans in the House might use the MTR to add all sorts of nasty stuff to the bailout. Below is an email circulating in the House about what they might do. Right now, the only amendment the Rules Committee authorized for a vote is one that adds oversight to the TARP program, but as you'll see, there's ample opportunity for Republicans to get very nasty if they can rustle up the votes from wayward Democrats (probably Blue Dogs).
The Rules Committee reported out a structured rule for the auto bailout bill. There is one hour of general debate on the bill, and the rule provides for an MTR (more on that below).
One amdt from Mr. LaTourette was made in order that was fully supported by the Rules Committee. The amdt text is attached. The amdt adds oversight to TARP. It stipulates that a company getting TARP money must report how much new lending it did. It is specifically aimed at the problem where lenders are taking TARP money and not using it for the intended purpose of lending, but instead are using the TARP funds to buy other banks, claim their assets, and say they are lending more money now (and in some cases laying off employees from the acquired bank in the process).
LaTourette amdt - the amdt requires that any lending assistance provided under TARP or EISA to an insured depository institution shall report the amount of any increase or decrease in new lending attributed to the TARP or EISA assistance. If the institution cannot provide an accurate report, the institution shall report the total amount of increase or decrease in overall new lending in its quarterly reports (10 minutes debate).
Please be advised that the MTR could be especially nasty - it is going to depend on how much trouble the Rs who oppose this wish to cause. The scope of this bill is very, very wide. And the Rs are really upset about a number of things right now. If the Rs wish to stir up an immense amount of trouble, the MTR could be things such as emissions standards, CAFÉ, the Columbia FTA (it is germane to the bill), anything transportation-related (due to the guarantee provision for mass transit entities), something immigration-related (the bill includes a COLA for judges, which opens the scope of Judiciary Cmte), and more. It is assumed the President will work to keep their Rs in line on this so they do not torpedo the bill, but there are no guarantees and no assurances. Wanted to be sure you are aware of this in the event things start spinning out of control.
Finally, the Senate will not be taking this up today, so we will be playing the waiting game. It is hoped the Senate will simply pass our bill tomorrow, pass it, and send to the President. But if recent history is any indicator, what is more likely to happen is we will pass the bill tonight; the Senate will take up the bill tomorrow, make changes to it, and stuff it down our throat; and we will then pass whatever the Senate passed. Stay tuned.
Tonight's Schedule (subj to change of course):
Debate on same day rule - 1 hour. We are now debating the same day rule
Vote on same day rule
Debate on the auto rule - 1 hour
Vote on the rule
General debate on the bill - 1 hour
Debate on the LaTourette amdt - 10 minutes
Vote on amdt (possibly voiced)
MTR debate - 10 minutes
Vote on MTR
Final Passage
We are going to be here for a while. Guessing 7:30pm-8pm; could be earlier or later depending on if time is yielded back or something is voiced.
I pointed to the MTR as a useful tool for an aggressive minority, but without expecting that the 110th GOP would make such strikingly successful use of it.
The bare numbers are impressive enough: in the seven months running up to the August recess, there were roll call votes on 45 MTRs, of which 31 failed and 14 passed.
By contrast, over the whole 109th, there were 51 RCVs on MTRs, none of which passed.
Perhaps the most infamous motion to recommit of the 110th was the one which caused La Pelosi to withdraw the FISA bill HR 3773 (of not-so-beloved memory).
That was a pretty spectacular success for the device. (Though, of course, the minority only stands a chance with a MTR if the majority is seriously divided on an issue germane to the bill in question.)
But even where a MTR is put to the vote and is defeated, there may still be a little goodness in it for the minority - as witness the MTR on HR 3056, on which I was drawn to comment on one of Matt's threads.
One of the GOP's chief talking points over the past decade - a call to repeal the estate tax - appears to be losing its ability to strike fear into Democratic politicians.
A House vote on a Republican motion last week to repeal the estate tax failed, with just 10 Democrats supporting Republicans, down from 42 who backed repeal two years ago.
Al Wynn flipped on this because of the primary challenge, and he had given cover to a lot of members with his nonsensical arguments about small business.
The text of HR 3773 (as reported out by Judiciary and Intelligence) has been reconciled by Rules (links to texts), which will today report the special rule under which it will be taken on the floor (the meeting to discuss the rule was supposed to have started at 1430 ET.)
Lacking the expertise, I have no intention of opining on exactly how far the Rules text of the bill meets the requirements of the famous Eight Theses of the CPC (earlier piece) - except to note that both their most specific points (a sunset and no telco immunity) are met.
But, earlier today, Woolsey and Lee wrote to Slaughter urging her to include the Holt Amendment (against basket warrants) among the amendments to be voted on, as specified by the rule.
(The fact that earlier drafts of the bill allowed basket warrants was singled out by the ACLU as worthy of criticism.)
After the furore over the Senate vote, the House vote to condemn MoveOn over the Betrayus ad seems to have had a rather smaller impact.
Interesting, though, (to students of Congressional procedure!) that the House vote came as in the form of a motion to to recommit.
Now, the almost total negative agenda control exercised by the House majority leadership is one of the foundations of legislative process in the Congresss.
(Negative because, thought the maj leadership can keep off the floor pretty much any bill or amendment it takes a dislike to, it does not have a commensurate power to pass legislative texts.)
A key (theoretical) exception to this agenda control is the motion to recommit: a one-shot opportunity, after all amendments allowed (if any!) have been dealt with, for those opposed to the bill to offer an amendment.
Holding elected representatives to account is laudable per se and something that happens too little and too imperfectly under the current US electoral system.
(The (bipartisan) Incumbents Preservation Act - including gerrymanders and campaign contributions - means that, failing an earthquake, most reps have a job for life. You don't hear too many complaints about that from those in situ.)
But placing the activities of particular reps in the context of the activities and strategy of the Dem House party as a whole is also necessary - and not as a piece of special pleading or attempt at exculpating particular reps.
Yesterday, Mike Lux figured the Bush Dog thing as a balancing act - which, I think, is not a bad metaphor.
He was thinking of the balance to be struck between maintaining (hopefully, boosting) Dem majorities in the 111th and moving the ideology of Congressional legislation leftwards.
I'd say it also applies in considering the role of the Bush Dogs (and other reps whose policy preferences don't match those of the lefty sphere generally) in relation to the priorities of the House Dem leadership.
