Democrats Announce Major Changes To U.S. House Rules

[babylonsister]

Last edited Wed Jan 2, 2019, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/681547346/democrats-announce-major-changes-to-u-s-house-rules?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190102&fbclid=IwAR2wQIfaVk_z4rvdsiKCaSQlUXQs1Rhpp9dxH6ALv01E-KFOB6zxJUAIWiw

Democrats Announce Major Changes To U.S. House Rules
January 2, 20199:28 AM ET
Susan Davis
One of the revived rules will bolster incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., against potential agitators in either party.


Top Democrats announced late Sunday a series of changes to House rules that could eliminate causes of major instability during the previous eight years of Republican rule in Congress.

"We are proposing historic changes that will modernize Congress, restore regular order and bring integrity back to this institution," said incoming House Rules Chairman James McGovern, D-Mass., in a statement explaining the changes.

When a new Congress convenes every two years, the majority party must approve a resolution outlining House rules, the intricate parliamentary procedures that govern the chamber. Two notable changes in the Democrats' package are aimed at avoiding certain confrontations that became commonplace during the Republican majority from 2011 through the GOP's 2018 midterm rout.

Democrats will revive the "Gephardt Rule," introduced in the late 1970s by Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., that automatically raises the debt ceiling — the nation's borrowing limit — once the House passes a budget.

more...

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/681547346/democrats-announce-major-changes-to-u-s-house-rules?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190102&fbclid=IwAR2wQIfaVk_z4rvdsiKCaSQlUXQs1Rhpp9dxH6ALv01E-KFOB6zxJUAIWiw

[tblue37]

1. K&R for visibility. nt

[onit2day]

36. So happy about Gephardt rule.Raising the debt ceiling should be automatic

since congress has already spent the funds. But every time republicans used it as an extortion tactic to blackmail dems to get what could not be gotten any other way. It's why we have the gov shut down now...and every other time.

[reACTIONary]

57. Exactly. If you vote to spend the money , ,,,

.... and you DON'T vote to raise the revenue through taxes, then you have authorized borrowing the revenue. It's simple math.

[berni_mccoy]

2. K&R!

[emulatorloo]

3. Thumbs up! Thanks for posting

[elmac]

4. Great changes! nt

[sheshe2]

5. K&R

[LiberalFighter]

6. Looks good to me.

Gee! Looks like bringing back some of the old ways that appear to be more effective and likely would allow them to get more work done. And actually imo brings them into the future.


I especially like prohibiting lawmakers and aides from sitting on corporate boards. Would like to see spouses in the same boat.

[SunSeeker]

7. Good. nt

[salin]

8. Sounds like grown ups are back in charge of The House.

[FakeNoose]

29. It's awesome, isn't it?

[George II]

9. This is really going to change the atmosphere in the House and Washington. But....

....unfortunately some Democrats are already complaining and have decided to vote against the new rules.

[babylonsister]

18. Who's complaining?

There are people who always bitch about anything/anything, but I'd like to know their names so I can watch them and see how often that happens.

[Recursion]

19. Pay-Go is being called "austerity"

Which is dishonest but will probably stick

[George II]

27. The only thing I saw about anything budgetary is that the debt ceiling automatically rises....

....when a budget is ratified.

I don't think they've released the detailed text yet, however.

[progressoid]

42. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred
Sixteenth Congress, and for other purposes.

‘‘10.(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and
1
(c), it shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint reso-
2
lution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions
3
of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues
4
have the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing
5
the surplus for either the period comprising—
6
‘‘(A) the current fiscal year, the budget year,
7
and the four fiscal years following that budget year;
8
or
9
‘‘(B) the current fiscal year, the budget year,
10
and the nine fiscal years following that budget year.
11
‘‘(2) The effect of such measure on the deficit or sur-
12
plus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made
13
by the Committee on the Budget relative to baseline esti-
14
mates supplied by the Congressional Budget Office con-
15
sistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and
16
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
17
‘‘(b) If a bill, joint resolution, or amendment is con-
18
sidered pursuant to a special order of the House directing
19
the Clerk to add as new matter at the end of such measure
20
the provisions of a separate measure as passed by the
21
House, the provisions of such separate measure as passed
22
by the House shall be included in the evaluation under
23
paragraph (a) of the bill, joint resolution, or amendment.

etc...https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/BILLS-116hresPIH-hres6.pdf

[George II]

21. Several are claiming that PayGo is going to be "snuck" into the rules. From my reading...

...of what's available regarding the rules, that's not accurate. I didn't see anything other than changing the way the debt ceiling is raised, which isn't "PayGo".

I prefer not being specific here about who they are but I'm sure it'll become evident in the course of tomorrow's vote. They're vowing to vote against the rules.

[babylonsister]

25. Thanks. I'll be watching. nt

[justie18]

31. Well

I will gladly be specific since she announced it to the universe using Twitter - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Are you surprised?

[George II]

39. Thanks for that.....

She and Ro Khanna of California. Actually she retweeted his with her comment added:

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

38. Warren Gunnels is complaining

Link to tweet

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Excellent, but the new climate panel should not have less power than the last one

The crisis is graver now than it was from 2007 to 2011.

But on whole these are excellent moves. Bravo.

[onecaliberal]

11. K&R

[grantcart]

12. Good news

[bronxiteforever]

13. Kick and recommend.

The instability created by the debt ceiling issue was pure GOP Theater. Getting rid of that malarkey is a stabilizing change that means the grownups are in charge.

[MFGsunny]

14. K & R ... so very timely and useful!

[Baltimike]

15. knr. It's all 2020 around here. nt

[2naSalit]

16. Good! K&R

[GemDigger]

17. Kick

[PatSeg]

20. Wow, I smell sanity in the air!

How refreshingly rational!

[KPN]

23. +11111!

[angrychair]

22. One small problem for me

1. Creating a committee to address climate change.
Sorry, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that they are creating a committee to investigate climate change that has no actual power to do anything.

1. It cannot require anybody to testify or produce documents for the committee

2. It cannot produce ANY actual legislation to do anything to fix climate change.

Sorry, another toothless committee that congress can hide behind to say they are doing something is not how you address a problem that is already likely past the point of no return. We are screwed.

[babylonsister]

24. At least the Dems are acknowledging climate

change is happening. You have to start somewhere and I see this having legs with the likes of AOC keeping after it. It surely isn't perfect but it's a start.


The proposed rules, which the House will vote to adopt Thursday when Democrats formally take the chamber’s majority, say the select committee is instructed “to investigate, study, make findings, and develop recommendations on policies, strategies, and innovations to achieve substantial and permanent reductions in pollution and other activities that contribute to the climate crisis which will honor our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet for future generations.”

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/423492-house-dems-formalize-climate-committee-plans-without-green-new-deal

[angrychair]

30. Sorry, I respectfully disagree

That climate change is happening is not in doubt at all and hasn’t been for several years. Scientists rarely agree on anything but on this subject 98% of all scientists agree and have for years.

This committee is powerless, without subpoena power it cannot compel testimony or documentation from polluters.
Per the OP article:

so it will not be as powerful as a similar committee created by Pelosi during the previous Democratic majority from 2007 to 2011

So it is not even as powerful as a previous committee that actually produced no real change.

“Develop recommendations” has long be political code for “do nothing but pretend we care”.

President Obama actually did something through executive orders and rule changes since Congress would not and since it came from the executive that allowed trump to dismantle it piece by piece.

This is always the case: food safety, leaded gasoline and smoking cigarettes, to name a few, were all things that took years, in some cases decades, of producing scientific evidence before finally getting congress to act.
Problem is we are already hitting “decades” part now on climate change and congress is still in the foot dragging, “we need more studies”, phase and refuses to budge.

Industries have got smarter and given their lobbying organizations deeper and deeper pockets than ever before.
I will happily eat crow if I’m wrong but I am now sadly resigned to the possibility that nothing will come from this congress to actually impact climate change in ANY meaningful way.
More islands have to sink below the sea before anyone will care enough.

[Bettie]

32. Acknowledgement and action are not

the same.

I can acknowledge that my floor needs to be swept all day, but it gets worse until I take some action and pick up a broom.

A committee that has no power to do anything is a waste of time. I'd add that (I may be wrong about this, if so please correct me) the person in charge of the new committee has some serious ties to the fossil fuel industry and thus a reason to ensure that it makes no progress.

[babylonsister]

43. So then climate change should just be ignored?

A committee formed in the House doesn't have a lot of sway perhaps, but I'll go with their recommendations getting attention and perhaps something can be done.

I maintain not acknowledging it would be worse.

[PDittie]

56. No, quite the opposite

Surprised you couldn't get that.

The committee should have been empowered to subpoena, like other Congressional committees. Otherwise it's a toothless watchdog.

But hey, we've still got a dozen years or so before the planet is done for. Why the rush?

[progressoid]

37. "This committee... sounds about as useful as a screen door on a submarine,"

“This committee, if it turns out that the rumors about it are true, sounds about as useful as a screen door on a submarine,” Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, told The Hill last week. “As it’s portrayed it’s going to be completely incapable of solving the greatest threat to human kind.”

[LanternWaste]

41. It is however, one additional tool to both inform and disseminate the relevant information.

"is not how you address a problem that is already likely past the point of no return..."

It is however, one additional tool to both inform and disseminate the relevant information to the people and within the government itself. And until or unless the committee is working against addressing climate change, I see zero absolute negatives as a consequence of its existence.

And, though Climate Change is most certainly accepted by the scientific community as you pointed out, more than half of the 115th Congress denied its very existence. It seems to me a committee promoting science is in and of itself, an absolute good in a government which denies science.

Thankfully, no one to date is arguing this committee is the only solution to the problem.

[angrychair]

54. Dissemination is great

Not sure how much more we can disseminate it though. We are literally teaching 6th graders the mechanics of climate change. Our understanding of climate change is so pervasive in our society, it’s now part of school curriculums.

It is a fact everywhere on Earth but congress.

We don’t need to study the issue. We need to act to address the problems.

A toothless committee to study and make recommendations fails to take climate change serious and we are quickly running out of time to make a difference.

[Hekate]

50. Pelosi created such a committee the last time she was Speaker. Just because it didn't have ...

...the name AOC wants on it does not mean it did not exist. Speaker Pelosi has now revived the committee and put a very experienced Dem in charge -- a woman, as it happens, but one with a track record in the House on this very issue. Brava, Madam Speaker!

[angrychair]

51. One VERY BIG difference

That last committee had subpoena power and could put forth bills.

This new committee can not do any of that.

That last committee, despite all that power, got nothing of note done.

This new committee is toothless and at best can aggregate already existing data and produce nothing new on a very serious issue.
The only person to do anything serious on climate change was president Obama, unfortunately everything he did failed to be supported by congress and since it only came from the executive branch, it allowed trump to reverse everything he did.

This committee is the old “this issue needs more study” political sidestep.

It’s obvious now that congress, left to solve this problem on their own, will still be studying this issue while the rest of us are standing in knee deep water.

[Hekate]

52. You're sure about that? I have more faith in my fellow Californian than you do. nt

[angrychair]

53. The last committee

Had subpoena power. That last committee existed for 4 years: can you name one thing of note that came out of it?
There is zero doubt or scientific controversy about climate change. None. Why do we need more study? What more could we possibly study? There is literally hundreds of recommendations from the scientific community, from simple to costly.

There is, today, several committees, that have actual subpoena power and can put forth a bill, that have oversight over these recommendations and can act on them. This new “special” committee gives them cover to not act on any of it and say there is a “special” committee studying the issue. “We are waiting on recommendations”. Two years from now the possibility exist we could lose the House again. If we do, this special committee disappears in a puff of smoke and we are exactly where we are today. Nowhere.

[bobGandolf]

26. YESSSSSSSS! This is good!

Coming out with a bang....Rule Changes....love it!

[lilactime]

28. K&R

[Harker]

33. Thus begins the rollback of hyperpartisanship...

and the inevitable replicant whining about "fairness."

[ailsagirl]

34. Excellent!!

[Scurrilous]

35. K&R

[BadgerMom]

40. Thank god.

Sound governance returns.

[coeur_de_lion]

44. I like this one

3. Setting new ethics rules that prohibit lawmakers and aides from sitting on corporate boards and a new requirement for annual ethics training for all lawmakers.

GOP gonna love that one.

[geardaddy]

47. That is a good one! nt

[red dog 1]

45. K&R, thanks for posting

[geardaddy]

46. K&R

Welcome back Dems!

[geardaddy]

48. Part of number 5 is for my newly elected rep.

5. Amending rules to extend bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and to allow religious headwear to be worn in the House chamber — an accommodation for Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf.

[ProfessorPlum]

49. Hooray!!! The Gephardt Rule! long past time to reinstate that and bring back some sanity

[PDittie]

55. Anybody on this thread mention Paygo?

Maybe I have them on Ignore ...