• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Pelosi Goes Through The Motions

The opening of the 111th Congress is, as always, accompanied by the typical minutiae of opening a new session of Congress. Most of these events aren’t too terribly interesting to the public, although the events surrounding the Minnesota and Illinois seats have raised the profile of the opening of the Senate.

By contrast the opening of the House of Representatives has been comparatively low-key, but the package of proposed rules changes in the House is noteworthy nonetheless. In addition to abolishing the term limits on committee chairs that Republicans imposed as part of the 1995 rules changes that accompanied their takeover of the House — a largely symbolic measure that, if anything, increased the power of the majority party leadership in the House at the expense of the committee system — Democrats are also proposing a more insidious change to abolish an obscure, but important, bit of parliamentary procedure, the motion to recommit with instructions.

Princeton political scientist Nolan McCarty describes the effect of this rule:

[T]he motion to recommit (MTR) is provides an important opportunity for the minority party to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. Essentially, when a bill is passed, any opponent may make a motion to send the bill back to committee with some suggested amendments. But because the language of the motion may require the committee “to report forthwith,” the MTR is essentially an opportunity for the minority to offer substantive amendments (but ones that may be again amended by the majority). So even if the Rule Committees [sic] doesn’t allow it to offer any formal amendments to the legislation, the minority will still have an opportunity to at least force a vote on one of its amendments, presumably one with the greatest importance and/or chance of peeling off enough moderate majority-party voters for passage. Even though few MTRs pass, the threat that they might pass or at least force some unpopular votes generates some leverage for the views of the minority party.

Given majority-party control of the House, however, the real effect is not so much to diminish the power of the GOP — who would be unable to sustain a motion to recommit on their own — but to weaken moderates within the majority party; as McCarty points out, the motion to recommit with instructions “giv[es] them a credible threat to vote with the minority on the MTR if their concerns are not addressed in the bill.” These votes also have an important symbolic role for moderates; even if the motion does not pass, they can point to these votes and argue to their constituents (many of whom are not natural supporters of the majority party) when seeking reelection that they tried to rein in the excesses of the majority.

While the Democratic majority may find that the rules change is, over the short term, to their advantage in passing a few controversial bills, the medium to long-term effect may be to promote the erosion of their majority.

Related Posts:

About Chris Lawrence
Chris teaches political science at Middle Georgia State College in Macon, Georgia. He has a Ph.D. in political science (with concentrations in American politics and political methodology) from the University of Mississippi.

Comments

  1. caj says:

    I must admit I have not been very impressed with Pelosi or Reid for that matter..they seem to have no backbone for doing the right thing.
    Both have been wishy washy and have not shown strong leadership.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. On the motion to recommit…

    Over at OTB, I look at proposed changes in parliamentary procedure in the House which continue the chamber’s bipartisan slide towards majority-party dictatorship—or, perhaps to riff on Matthew Shugart’s observations regarding the House, irrespons…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Scott Swank says:

    The problem is not with the option “to report forthwith” but rather with the option “to report promptly”. This sends the bill back to committee and near the end of a session will typically kill the bill due to tight scheduling.

    So the typical tactic is to send it to committee promptly with an amendment not to club puppies to death. Now the majority has to either vote to club puppies to death or kill the bill. Anyone in a competitive district tends to avoid voting to club puppies.

    This is a change that the House has needed for some time, regardless of which party is in the majority.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. legion says:

    While the Democratic majority may find that the rules change is, over the short term, to their advantage in passing a few controversial bills, the medium to long-term effect may be to promote the erosion of their majority.

    Well, it’s entirely possible that the Dems are more interested in actually making government function in a way that makes the US a little better, rather than consolidating their own party’s power over the long term.

    Scott is entirely correct in that this has been needed for a long time. If the object of either party is to actually create substantive legislation – rather than simply putting roadblocks in the way of actual progress – this ought to be welcomed by all sides.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Steve Verdon says:

    While the Democratic majority may find that the rules change is, over the short term, to their advantage in passing a few controversial bills, the medium to long-term effect may be to promote the erosion of their majority.

    Two points come to mind:

    1. What about when the Republicans are eventually back in power.

    Sure maybe not for 10 or more years, but these things are cyclical, eventually they will be back in charge. Having that rule might be to the Democrats advantage then.

    2. If this strengthens the more extreme members of the majority at the expense of the moderates then we might want to rethink that 10 or more years.

    Then again politicians and long term thinking are like military and intelligence. Two terms that don’t naturally go together.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Dr. N says:

    The Dems have been recruiting moderates for at least 2 elections cycles to put themselves back in power. Now, they need a way to keep those moderates at bay if they are going to implement a more leftist agenda. If Dem leaders continue down this path, there will likely be a moderate led rebellion at some point.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0