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.