Okay, I know why. It's because when the Constitution was written, the only practical way to have votes was to have Congressmen show up in person and cast their votes. And so, in grand tradition, House and Senate rules maintain this practice.

But today, it's hardly necessary that a Senator actually be present in order to register a timely, secure vote. We could set up a teleconference, or any number of secured networks in order to ensure only the actual Congressional member voted.

Well, OK, it's not pandemonium. But guess what? House Republicans are being petulant children again, and they're using the House procedural rules to play their games.

And you'll never guess what procedural device they're using to make their mischief.

Remember the motion to recommit? It's back (it never left, actually), and it's at the center of an annoying time-waster of a trick that looks like it's going to become standard Republican operating procedure for the next few weeks.

Here's what's happening.

At the end of consideration of pretty much any bill of any substance on any issue, a Republican offers a motion to recommit the bill to committee, with instructions to strike out everything in it and substitute in its place the text of the Senate-passed FISA bill -- the one with retroactive amnesty for the telecom companies.

It doesn't matter, for the Republicans' purposes, that the bill they're trying to pull this trick on has nothing whatsoever to do with FISA, electronic surveillance, or any related topic.

It matters to the rules, of course. And so every time, without fail, a Democrat raises a point of order (definition) against the motion, as non-germane (definition). The presiding officer sustains the point of order -- because it's quite correct and the Republicans know it. Still, each time the Republicans appeal the ruling of the chair (definition). That prompts the Democrats to move to table the appeal (definition), on which the House then holds a vote.

Democrats call this vote what it is: a procedural vote to sustain the actual rules of the House. The motion, if offered to a housing bill, a health care bill, or the AmeriCorps reauthorization bill -- as it has been over the past few days -- isn't germane.

Republicans, though, call this vote what they wish it was: a vote on the FISA amendments and telecom immunity, no doubt planning to tell people in upcoming attack ads that Democrat X voted "to weaken America" N number of times.

So in the end, the Republicans don't succeed in actually getting a vote on, much less passing, the Senate FISA bill. But they get to make trouble, rack up Democratic votes against it, and in fact end up getting a second bite at the motion to recommit apple, since the first one they offered was ruled out of order.

And that's where Republicans have been making even more trouble. During consideration of H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) first offered the non-germane FISA motion, got shot down, lost the appeal vote, and was dispensed with. But once he was done, Michelle "Points for Putting Her Vomit in Contact with Jean Schmidt" Bachmann (R-MN) offered a motion to recommit, to add provisions invalidating public housing regulations prohibiting firearms possession.

Agree? Disagree? It doesn't really matter, because Bachmann's motion was written in a way that wouldn't let you agree, even if you wanted to -- as Steny Hoyer tried to do. That's because her motion instructed the committee to report her changes back "promptly," as opposed to "forthwith." A full explanation of the difference can be found here, but the basic deal is this: If your motion says "forthwith," that means they just pretend to send the bill back to committee, but really just make the damn change right there, and then vote on it right away with the changes. But if your motion says "promptly," the bill actually does go back to committee, where it basically dies.

So you see, it doesn't even matter whether you agreed with Bachmann or not. She wouldn't let you. Here's what happened when Hoyer tried to work things out with her:

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady.

Would the gentlelady agree to a unanimous consent request to make your amendment a forthwith amendment so that it could be voted upon? My presumption is the gentlelady wants the amendment adopted, the gentlelady believes the majority of the House is for it. Would the gentlelady agree to such a unanimous consent?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the request from the majority leader; however, the answer would be no.

We are aware of this problem, and it's very important that we send this back to the committee so that it will be fixed.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, so it's more important to delay it than to adopt it now?

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker and Majority Leader, as you know, the important point is that the committee has a chance to look at this measure. They did not have a chance to do so. We want to make sure that they have the opportunity to fix the bill.

Hoyer offered to accept her changes and pass them right then and there on the floor. But Bachmann claimed rather than actually pass her amendment, she just, you know, wanted the committee to look at it.

End result? The Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act got pulled from the floor, and now languishes in limbo. Without Bachmann's changes.

Does that sound like she was serious to you? Doesn't matter. A public housing bill is dead, and she's happy.

The fake FISA motion was used again on Wednesday, during consideration of H.R. 1424, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. Motion made to delete the text and turn it into the FISA bill, ruled non-germane, ruling appealed, appeal tabled. Then another motion to recommit was offered that actually had something to do with the bill, but the Republicans weren't ready to stand in the way of this one, so they allowed a straight-up vote on their motion, using "forthwith" instructions. They lost.

But the tricks were back on Thursday, for consideration of H.R. 2857, the GIVE Act, reauthorizing the AmeriCorps program. Only this time, they added another twist. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) offered the fake FISA motion. Motion ruled non-germane, ruling appealed, appeal tabled. Then the "real" motion, from Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY), requiring criminal background checks for AmeriCorps volunteers. But using the bill-killing "promptly" language.

In a replay of the Bachmann charade, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), offered on behalf of Democrats to accept Kuhl's changes, if he'd amend his motion language from "promptly" to "forthwith," and Kuhl offered a counter-proposal: he'd change it to "forthwith" if the Dems would bring an immediate vote on the Senate FISA bill.

No deal. Dems told Kuhl to go hang, but had to pull the AmeriCorps bill, too.

You may recall that the other day, mcjoan told us that Congressional Dems may just have to run out the clock on the 110th without getting anything major done. Now it looks like House Republicans have decided to make sure even less gets accomplished, by proposing amendments to every bill through the motion to recommit, but then declining Democratic offers to accept those changes, preferring to kill entire bills and their own amendments with contrived delays.

Congratulations, then, to the Republicans, for inventing the House equivalent of the filibuster. Or at least the House "hold." Granted, in the other body, just one Senator can do this all alone. But among the House Republican Borg, there is but one collective mind. So when one pulls this delaying move, all are sure to follow, committing their votes to it just as readily and robotically as they did in their glory days as the Rubber Stamp Republicans of old.

Look for more of the same in the coming days.

If you caught the opening session of the 111th Congress yesterday, you saw the House work through its ritual biennial reconstitution, including the adoption of a new set of standing rules. Because every Member of the House is reelected every two years, the House is entirely "new" each time, so they have to adopt "new" rules each time the start over.

In practice, that means pretty much re-adopting the rules they had last time, along with whatever changes they want to make looking forward. And there were a few interesting changes this time around.

Here's the package itself, contained in H. Res. 5 (PDF), if you'd like to see what such a resolution actually looks like.

What's in it? Ask Steny. He'll tell you, also in PDF form.

Rules changes this year will further strengthen the integrity of the institution.  Commonsense reforms incorporated into the House Rules Package include:

• Closing the loophole that allowed ‘lame duck’ Members to negotiate employment contracts in secret to ensure full transparency in future negotiations.

• Removing reference to term limits for Committee Chairs from this package to remove political considerations from the official Rules of the House. Term limits were originally incorporated into the House rules by Republicans in 1995, and as a result, elevated fundraising as a prerequisite for election to Chair.

• Making commonsense changes to the motion to recommit that preserve the Minority’s legitimate right to present policy alternatives while denying them the abusive practice of subverting the work of Congress by working to kill key measures that have broad, bipartisan support from the American people by raising unrelated amendments for the sole purpose of scoring political points.  

• Codifying additional budget earmark reforms adopted mid-term in the 110th Congress resulting in even further transparency and accountability in the earmark process.

• Maintaining strong PAYGO rules that will help restore fiscal discipline.

I'm particularly pleased to see the changes being made to the motion to recommit, which has been irksome to me (and, it turns out, to some people who actually count) for some time now.

A quick primer: a motion to recommit a bill to committee with instructions to report back a proposed amendment "forthwith" means the bill stays on the floor and is amended immediately, whereas instructions to report back "promptly" actually sends the bill off the floor and back to committee, where it usually dies.

The MTR with instructions to report back "promptly" is a stupid option to even have on the books. If you want the chance to change legislation, then vote to change it. If you want the chance to kill it, then wait five minutes and vote against the bill.

The need to change this rule may be our own fault for allowing Democrats to break ranks on motions to recommit, but there was never any real utility to the "promptly" instruction except as a way to kill a bill while looking like you're not killing it. How was the public ever to guess that "promptly" really meant "never?" The "promptly" instruction is a bullshit trick, and it deserves to die.

Hoyer provides some interesting numbers on the "promptly" instruction. Republicans offered 50 such motions in the 110th Congress. Democrats offered just 36 during the entire 12-year Republican majority from 1995-2007. (Most, I would bet, were in the 109th Congress, when the Dems, then in the minority, hatched the strategy of frequent use the motion to recommit to set up election issues. Unsurprisingly, it turned out that the tactic can also be used by other people when they're in the minority.)

Another number: Dems actually voted to pass 25 "forthwith" motions in the 110th Congress, which is held out to demonstrate that they were willing to work with Republicans on "fine-tuning" legislation with this procedure. Of course, we learned recently that that's about the total number of motions to recommit that were adopted. That prior article lists the number of motions adopted at 24. I don't know where the 25th came from, but if the whole number of motions adopted was in the neighborhood of 24 or 25, and Hoyer's fact sheet says 25 "forthwith" motions were adopted, then maybe the "promptly" motions weren't a tremendous problem after all. Still, I don't really even like "forthwith" motions, because I don't like the idea of amending legislation in 10 minutes when you often haven't even seen the text until the moment it's offered. But hey, that's just me.

Anyway, here's yet another Hoyer fact sheet, this one (PDF) just on the MTR issue, if you're interested. And why wouldn't you be? Especially when becoming familiar with the motion to recommit opens up a whole new world of geek humor, which you could have enjoyed yesterday if you watched the proceedings and saw Republicans offer a motion to recommit the Rules package with instructions to remove the change in the rules on motions to recommit.

At least they had the courtesy to offer the MTR with instructions to report the changes back "forthwith." Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't take their last opportunity to offer a "promptly" instruction, if just for old times' sake.

But there were other goodies buried in the Rules package, too. Check these out!

Built right into the vehicle of the Rules package, the House authorized the Judiciary Committee to continue its lawsuit seeking to enforce its subpoenas and contempt of Congress citations against Bush White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Technically, Miers and Bolten were in contempt of the 110th Congress. But with its adjournment, the 110th Congress no longer exists, so there's nothing to be in contempt of, nor any plaintiff in the lawsuit. The courts had indicated that this might give them cause to moot the whole case and drop it. But the Rules package specifically authorizes the Judiciary Committee in the new 111th Congress to continue the suit. And we had earlier word that the 111th was considering reissuing those subpoenas.

From Hoyer's fact sheet (PDF):

Continuing Authority Over Executive Branch Lawsuit –

• Congress has the responsibility and constitutional right to oversee the Executive Branch.  The lawsuit was filed in order to preserve and enforce the House’s constitutional responsibility and right to oversee the Executive Branch; it also was filed to preserve the Executive Branch’s responsibility to comply with congressional subpoenas and to restore the institutional integrity of Congress.  This provision authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary and the House General Counsel to continue the lawsuit derived from the House holding White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with congressional subpoenas.  Because the subpoenas expire at the end of the 110th Congress, the resolution is needed so that the Judiciary Committee can continue to appear in court in the 111th Congress.  

• With respect to the continued investigation into the firing of certain United States Attorneys, this provision authorizes the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to issue subpoenas and the taking of depositions by Members or counsel, which will be governed by rules printed in the Congressional Record by the Rules Committee chair or otherwise prescribed by the Judiciary Committee.  In addition, it authorizes the Judiciary Committee and General Counsel to add as a party to the lawsuit any individual subpoenaed by the Committee in the 110th Congress who failed to comply.

• The House has already won the contempt of Congress case at the trial level; a Federal judge ordered Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers to comply with valid congressional subpoenas – this resolution allows for the continuance of that lawsuit during the appeal.

But that's not all.

Take a good look at this part again:

In addition, it authorizes the Judiciary Committee and General Counsel to add as a party to the lawsuit any individual subpoenaed by the Committee in the 110th Congress who failed to comply.

Who else was subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee in the 110th Congress and failed to comply?

Karl Rove.

And Michael Mukasey.

Nice going, Chairman Conyers and Speaker Pelosi.

In the face of what was likely some stiff resistance and a desire to "turn the page" with a new administration, etc., Conyers and Pelosi appear determined to get an answer from the courts once and for all on whether the Congress is to have a serious subpoena power with respect to the executive branch or not. Good for them. And good for us. And good for Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY-28) for agreeing to include these measures.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) may have gotten herself into even more ethical trouble.  Just as the truth appears to be something she frequently chooses to ignore, she appears to treat House ethics rules in the same way.  In her efforts to promote her healthcare protest that occurred last week, she used her official House website to promote it.

For those who might not be aware, the House Rules Committee, headed by Representative Louise Slaughter, is meeting today to mark up (establish the rules for) the HCR vote(s) in the House.  It is being carried live on C-Span 2 (they began at 10:00 am and are now on lunch break, but will be back soon).

I didn't see a live blog going, so I thought I would start one for those who want to get into the legislative weeds with me.

More details after the jump /\

UPDATE #1:  1:30 pm edt, They're back from lunch, let the fun begin!

The America COMPETES Act, originally passed in 2007 to promote science and technology research and education, is up for renewal.  It's one of the major projects of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by Bart Gordon.  The renewal bill has over 100 co-sponsors, but it still can't seem to get passed.

Last Friday it was brought up for a vote.  The minority party in the House has an opportunity to offer a "motion to recommit" a bill to committee before a final vote is taken, and the text (and pretext) of such a motion only have to be made public something like 15 minutes before the vote on the motion.  Republican spinmeisters have gotten adept at throwing out motions to recommit that it takes some courage to vote against.

I've got two good news pieces this week - and one issue that needs your help. Last week our Michigan Chapter and everyone who loves clean air and clean energy got some great news when the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Environment (MDNRE) denied a permit for the proposed Wolverine coal-fired power plant.

We're cheering the news - the MDNRE decision states there is no need for the proposed power plant, in Rogers City, Michigan, and that alternative methods are available that would supply the customers of the four electric cooperatives that make up Wolverine with electricity at a much cheaper rate than the cost of building a new coal plant.

Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives votes 234-194 to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, undoubtedly causing a restless night for House minority leader John Boehner (R-Oh 8) who earlier this week said, "Rushing ahead with a political decision without understanding how it will impact the men and women of our Armed Forces who are fighting two wars is deeply irresponsible. I hope members of Congress who care about our national security on both sides of the political aisle will stand together to stop it."

Now, Boehner would only know about this secondhand since, a mere eight weeks after enlisting in the Navy, he was discharged due to a "bad back."

Someone who would know firsthand about this is Justin Coussoule who, fortuitously, happens to be running against Boehner for the 8th district seat.

http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

The University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll has good news for Democrats. In the Senate race:

Ohio Poll (PDF) by the University of Cincinnati. 5/11-5/20. Likely voters. MoE 3.8%

And in the governor's race:

Fisher's lead is obviously well within the margin of error, virtually a tie. But if a poll is going to find someone up by a point, better it be the Dem. And this result shows that this open seat is very much in play and could provide a key pick-up for Democrats.

Strickland holds a lead, but it's a narrow one and he is an incumbent under 50%, so we can't breathe easy yet. Strickland's overall approval provides added encouragement, though -- it has risen by seven points since October. Fisher's fortunes rest to a significant degree on Strickland's in this election, which gives his performance added importance.

Add this poll to the pile of polls showing good news for Democrats this week.

That's what it appears Huffington Post has done.

I don't normally read HuffPo because it's a little too cheesy/pop-culture-oriented for me and a lot of the hard news stories seem to be written more to provoke than to inform. I think I can now remove the word "seem." I do get their e-mail headline updates in case there's anything interesting, and I was shocked to read a little while ago that they had a column featured by Ken Blackwell.

This post was co-written by Nachy Kanfer, Associate Field Organizer for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign in Ohio.

We regularly dispute Big Coal when they say coal is not bad for the environment - now we have another example of how this dirty, outdated power source is costing jobs and damaging the economy in one state.

The Sierra Club just co-released a report showing that the Bay Shore coal-fired power plant in Oregon, Ohio, causes nearly $30 million in damages to the state's economy every year.

The terrible problem Senator Voinovich is not the Federal deficit. It is the jobs deficit that is really causing the terrible problems in our great country and specifically in our great state of Ohio. The problem really is the economy is not creating enough jobs especially jobs that pay a decent, livable wage.
More below the fold

But judging by his actions I don't believe him. He says he wants to be the "party of better solutions." But solutions for who? The same corporate special interests who have financed his entire political career? That's who he's always worked for, isn't it?

Financial Sector- $3,533,714
Medical Industrial Complex- $1,419,497
Lobbyists- $291,940
Big Oil- $258,350
Big Booze- $254,225
Telephone Utilities- $236,348
Big Tobacco- $201,959
War Industries- $200,025

No really!  For the last ten years travelers on I-75 in SW Ohio have been greeted by a 62 foot tall plastic Jesus statue rising out of reflecting pool beside the interstate.  The statue has been the subject of many a wry comment over the years (it was known locally as "Touchdown Jesus"), and for some it was a source of civic embarrassment. (Frankly this was the bulkiest Jesus I ever saw, looks a bit like a linebacker).

But last night, with an act of god, the good lord spoke.

    Kicking the national addiction to oil and building more roads are diametrically opposed as policy positions. But President Obama appeared giddily unaware of the contradiction when he christened the 10,000th Stimulus road-building project in Ohio today. Touching down for less than an hour in Columbus, flanked by One-Term Ted of Ohio, aka Governor Strickland, the President touted the temporary construction jobs that will come from laying more asphalt over open ground as exactly what the country needs. http://www.politicsdaily.com/...

     The President said that building these roads will bring more private investment as a result -- a theory that hasn't drawn academic support since the Pleistocene, roughly. The Governor chimed in acknowledging that just building roads won't do the trick (duh), and then proceeded to chide the "private sector" and the banks for not providing enough investment and credit (yeah, that'll work).    

John Boehner has a target on his back. It was put there by a young man from Liberty Township in Butler County, Ohio named Justin Coussoule. And what Coussoule is targeting is his votes, votes that Boehner, whom Coussoule calls "an embarrassment on so many levels," has taken for granted — because he could. He’s mostly faced token opposition. His 2008 opponent raised $13,000. His 2006 opponent raised $3,000. The thinking of Democrats in this southwest district abutting Indiana — one of its most conservative regions — was "why bother?" Justin Coussoule doesn’t think like that.

I spoke at length with Coussoule this morning: about why he got into the race, why he thinks the district is more competitive than it might seem, what he plans to do to make it as competitive as possible this year, his biggest roadblocks, and especially, what he believes and what he stands for. I was intrigued by his candidacy before — wouldn’t it be great if we Ohioans no longer had to apologize to the world for the orange blight on our Congress? — but I’m totally sold now.

http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

Yesterday I introduced you to Justin Coussoule, the 35-year old West Point grad, Army veteran, husband to fellow West Point grad and Army veteran Amanda, and father of two, who gave up his good job at Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati to take on what some  — but not Justin — regard as a quixotic mission: ejecting John Boehner’s tan ass from Congress and shipping it permanently to the golf course so he can play 365 days a year, not a mere 119.

Justin’s website:
https://secure.blueutopia.com/...

It seems like John Boehner either secretly wishes to be defeated or else he’s just spent too much time in gated golf-course communities like the one he lives in, and he doesn’t realize how desperately grateful most Americans are for Social Security, especially in these hard times. Either way, it would be nice to give his orange ass a little nudge — out of Congress and onto the golf course, where he seems to prefer to be, full-time.

Fortunately, this year, Boehner has the most serious and determined opponent he’s had since he was elected 20 years ago. Justin Coussoule is a West Point graduate, Army veteran and attorney who gave up a secure job with Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati to take on Boehner. (The primary is over and Justin IS the Democratic candidate — I have to mention that because some people have asked if he has a Democratic challenger).
http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

I was born in Ohio. I grew up in an inner ring suburb of Cleveland. My siblings and I lived in the same house and we graduated from the same high school. My parents are still married and now live in Cleveland for the lower property taxes. I live in Cleveland, for now.

Yesterday, my colleagues and I considered the Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. This legislation would extend unemployment insurance (UI) through November 30, 2010 and retroactively restore benefits to people who may have started losing their benefits as early as the end of May—some after just 26 weeks.