Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The proposed House rules package is published! Section-by-section descriptions . . .
ORIGINAL TWEET:Link to tweet
The proposed House rules package is up!
1. Here's the section-by-section descriptions https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/116-HRes6-SxS.pdf …
2. Here's the package itself https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/BILLS-116hresPIH-hres6.pdf …
3. Here's the XML version that would allow you to do track changes https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/BILLS-116hresPIH-hres6.xml …
1. Here's the section-by-section descriptions https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/116-HRes6-SxS.pdf …
2. Here's the package itself https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/BILLS-116hresPIH-hres6.pdf …
3. Here's the XML version that would allow you to do track changes https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20181231/BILLS-116hresPIH-hres6.xml …
UNROLLED THREAD:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1080278956539023360.html
The proposed House rules package is up!
1. Here's the section-by-section descriptions docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
2. Here's the package itself docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
3. Here's the XML version that would allow you to do track changes docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
I just read through the section-by-section. There's a lot of good stuff in there. The resolution is 60 pages, and will take some time to digest.
It seems really unlikely the consensus calendar will ever be used. 290 co-sponsors plus not reported about by committee plus on the leg calendar for 25 days and must be betw/ March 1 2019 and Sept 30 2020. The only example I can think of is ECPA, blocked by Goodlatte.
Unsure what I think about extending deadline of cmte rule publication from 30 to 60 days.
Also, the notice requirements for cmte markups -- 3 calendar days (no longer counts the weekends) still seems short. Hearings get 7 days. And no req to provide a copy of the bill txt.
The House has included a real 72 hour rule, not the BS the R's had. A bill must be online 72 hrs prior to a vote on the House floor. Includes lots of things, but does NOT include simple resolutions.
It *looks* like there's a seriously loosening up of the discharge petition reqs so that it's possible to get something to the floor. And also a real fix for the war powers nonsense the R leadership kept pulling.
I don't understand the stuff on the private calendar. Looks like it's okay to wear headgear on the floor; allows faster floor votes; allows a net increase in budget authority; reinstates (?) PayGO. Bans discrimination on basis of sex or religion.
Ah, glad to see this one: ban sexual relations between members of a committee and the staff that serves on it. This was a loophole in the CAA bill.
I can think of a few members who won't like this: indicted members (w 2 year+ likely term) must resign from cmtes and leadership positions.
The rule addressing the debt limit is sensible. If the House chooses to spend more money then clearly it wants to raise the debt limit, so it creates and sends an automatic joint resolution on that point. Totally reasonable.
Allowing staff to take depositions w/o members president is sensible, too. Glad to see the parallel still there. And very, very pleased to see Dems endorse expanding public access to legislative documents as structured data. V. important for transparency
I don't really understand what's happening with the advance approps stuff. Seems like there's an effort to make sure cmtes have considered legislation and that stuff isn't just plopped into the rules cmte w/o other committee consideration.
Disappointed there's no transparency around the BLAG. Similarly, the language on OCE adopts a not great provision the Rs put in during the 115th that allows Ds and Rs to appoint bd members with notice but doesn't require agreement. Should think about this more.
The congressional member organization stuff could be a big deal. This seems like a reach back to the legislative service orgs that Newt killed in the 90s. Seems to allow staff to serve CMOs and perform official duties. Don't see a new funding source, tho. Still, this seems good.
The House Rules include a fix to the NDA problem, allowing staff to report ethics problems without having to worry about violating NDA. Nicely done. Also seems to require personal financial responsibility for harassers.
I like the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Seems like this will be a real thing -- implementation will be fascinating. Also glad to see the creation of a whistleblower ombudsman! (Looks like it doesn't create a secure reporting mechanism, tho)
A big enchilada is the select committee on the modernization of congress. Looks like it will have to work fast -- final report due by the end of the year. Will have real diverse views in membership. 2/3s to approve recs, high bar. Will see how it staffs up.
That's what I noticed from a first, quick read through of the rules package. There's other things that folks care about (climate change select cmte, for example), and I don't follow all the details. All in all this has the possibility of real changes for the better in House ops.
Oh, and I made tons of stupid typos and probably a bunch of boo-boos in my analysis. Take this all with a huge grain of salt... or a shot of whiskey.
One reason why I care so much about this is because the rules of the House set the rules of the game -- they control what is and is not possible, and what's likely and unlikely to happen. Our recs to fix the rules are here:
Get the House in Order
https://www.getthehouseinorder.com/
I guess I should add this here: this is the press release from McGovern and Pelosi announcing the rules package. democrats-rules.house.gov/press-release/…
And you're probably wondering: what happens next? I don't know, but I think that the House Democratic Caucus will vote on the proposal tomorrow (Wednesday). I do *not* know whether/ how amendments happen. Then the full House votes on Thursday. (I can talk about how that works)
The reason why I think the Dem caucus might be meeting is because the Republican conference met the day before the rules package was adopted in the 115th, and I am assuming (without knowing) that Dems have to do something similar. But that's just a guess.
Update: I was wrong about a dem caucus meeting.
1. Here's the section-by-section descriptions docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
2. Here's the package itself docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
3. Here's the XML version that would allow you to do track changes docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/…
I just read through the section-by-section. There's a lot of good stuff in there. The resolution is 60 pages, and will take some time to digest.
It seems really unlikely the consensus calendar will ever be used. 290 co-sponsors plus not reported about by committee plus on the leg calendar for 25 days and must be betw/ March 1 2019 and Sept 30 2020. The only example I can think of is ECPA, blocked by Goodlatte.
Unsure what I think about extending deadline of cmte rule publication from 30 to 60 days.
Also, the notice requirements for cmte markups -- 3 calendar days (no longer counts the weekends) still seems short. Hearings get 7 days. And no req to provide a copy of the bill txt.
The House has included a real 72 hour rule, not the BS the R's had. A bill must be online 72 hrs prior to a vote on the House floor. Includes lots of things, but does NOT include simple resolutions.
It *looks* like there's a seriously loosening up of the discharge petition reqs so that it's possible to get something to the floor. And also a real fix for the war powers nonsense the R leadership kept pulling.
I don't understand the stuff on the private calendar. Looks like it's okay to wear headgear on the floor; allows faster floor votes; allows a net increase in budget authority; reinstates (?) PayGO. Bans discrimination on basis of sex or religion.
Ah, glad to see this one: ban sexual relations between members of a committee and the staff that serves on it. This was a loophole in the CAA bill.
I can think of a few members who won't like this: indicted members (w 2 year+ likely term) must resign from cmtes and leadership positions.
The rule addressing the debt limit is sensible. If the House chooses to spend more money then clearly it wants to raise the debt limit, so it creates and sends an automatic joint resolution on that point. Totally reasonable.
Allowing staff to take depositions w/o members president is sensible, too. Glad to see the parallel still there. And very, very pleased to see Dems endorse expanding public access to legislative documents as structured data. V. important for transparency
I don't really understand what's happening with the advance approps stuff. Seems like there's an effort to make sure cmtes have considered legislation and that stuff isn't just plopped into the rules cmte w/o other committee consideration.
Disappointed there's no transparency around the BLAG. Similarly, the language on OCE adopts a not great provision the Rs put in during the 115th that allows Ds and Rs to appoint bd members with notice but doesn't require agreement. Should think about this more.
The congressional member organization stuff could be a big deal. This seems like a reach back to the legislative service orgs that Newt killed in the 90s. Seems to allow staff to serve CMOs and perform official duties. Don't see a new funding source, tho. Still, this seems good.
The House Rules include a fix to the NDA problem, allowing staff to report ethics problems without having to worry about violating NDA. Nicely done. Also seems to require personal financial responsibility for harassers.
I like the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Seems like this will be a real thing -- implementation will be fascinating. Also glad to see the creation of a whistleblower ombudsman! (Looks like it doesn't create a secure reporting mechanism, tho)
A big enchilada is the select committee on the modernization of congress. Looks like it will have to work fast -- final report due by the end of the year. Will have real diverse views in membership. 2/3s to approve recs, high bar. Will see how it staffs up.
That's what I noticed from a first, quick read through of the rules package. There's other things that folks care about (climate change select cmte, for example), and I don't follow all the details. All in all this has the possibility of real changes for the better in House ops.
Oh, and I made tons of stupid typos and probably a bunch of boo-boos in my analysis. Take this all with a huge grain of salt... or a shot of whiskey.
One reason why I care so much about this is because the rules of the House set the rules of the game -- they control what is and is not possible, and what's likely and unlikely to happen. Our recs to fix the rules are here:
Get the House in Order
https://www.getthehouseinorder.com/
I guess I should add this here: this is the press release from McGovern and Pelosi announcing the rules package. democrats-rules.house.gov/press-release/…
And you're probably wondering: what happens next? I don't know, but I think that the House Democratic Caucus will vote on the proposal tomorrow (Wednesday). I do *not* know whether/ how amendments happen. Then the full House votes on Thursday. (I can talk about how that works)
The reason why I think the Dem caucus might be meeting is because the Republican conference met the day before the rules package was adopted in the 115th, and I am assuming (without knowing) that Dems have to do something similar. But that's just a guess.
Update: I was wrong about a dem caucus meeting.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
