How a Bill Doesn’t Become a Law 101

After weeks of wrangling, positioning, and debate, the House was poised yesterday afternoon to vote on the RESTORE Act, a measure to improve the FISA law that corrects some of the mistakes of a similar bill from August. It didn’t go well — House Dems had to pull the bill from the floor after GOP leaders reminded everyone why they’re not to be taken seriously on matters of public policy.

At the start of the day, Democrats were confident that the measure would gain approval in the House despite a veto threat from President Bush. But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders put off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama bin Laden from attacking the United States again.

The Republican measure declared that nothing in the broader bill should be construed as prohibiting intelligence officials from conducting the surveillance needed to prevent Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda “from attacking the United States.” Had it passed, it threatened to derail the Democratic measure altogether.

Democrats denounced the Republicans’ poison pill on Mr. bin Laden as a cynical political ploy and “a cheap shot.”

In reality, it wasn’t a “cheap” shot; it was a stupid shot.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), a member of the Republican leadership, introduced an amendment to “clarify” that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person.” The amendment lacked any and all substance — for the purposes of legislation, Cantor’s measure was a childish little game.

But it was a painful reminder that legislating like a child can sometimes be successful.

Cantor’s shallow amendment was ridiculous for a couple of reasons. First, it was obviously intended to scuttle the legislation. Lawmakers didn’t want to be in a position of voting for an amendment, no matter how ridiculous, that might be construed as “weak” on terrorism. But if the amendment passed, procedurally, it would send the entire bill back to committee and delay the process considerably.

Second, Cantor’s little game was redundant — the legislation already included grown-up language that achieved the same goal.

[I]t turns out that the FISA legislation may already accomplish what Cantor said he wanted to accomplish with his amendment — that is, it has provisions in it that allow the intelligence community to do whatever surveillance they need in the event of an imminent terror attack.

Here’s what Dem Rep. Jerrold Nadler had to say in his recent statement announcing his backing of the bill: “It also includes emergency provisions, including the ability to get a warrant after the fact, to ensure that the government will never have to stop listening to a suspected terrorist plotting an attack.” […]

Dem House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has just put out a statement reiterating this point, accusing the GOP of pushing an amendment that is “proposing language already provided in the bill.” And the Associated Press is equally unequivocal, saying that the bill “allows the unfettered surveillance of such groups.”

In other words, Cantor and the GOP were just being stupid, on purpose. As my friend A.L. put it, “The Republicans might as well have offered an amendment ‘clarifying’ that ‘anyone who votes against this amendment is gay.’ That’s about the level of maturity we’re talking about here. It’s the kind of stuff that would embarrass most seven-year-olds.”

But just to add insult to injury, the Republicans followed up with child-like bravado.

“House Democrats have pulled the FISA bill,” Cantor said. “They are so desperately against allowing our intelligence agencies to fight OBL and AQ, that they pulled the entire bill to prevent a vote.”

Got that? According to a House Republican leader, Democrats are treasonous, and pulled a surveillance bill in order to protect terrorists.

We’re dealing with children who are running a major political party in the House of Representatives. It’s painful to watch, in part because the children think they’re clever.

Complicating matters, word this morning is that senators and the White House struck a deal that would pass a revised FISA bill. Bush likes it, and it includes telecom immunity. More on that later.

But again, I am having trouble understanding the procedural issues here. When the R’s were in power, we didn’t get to offer amendments. How is it that this amendment became such a threat to the bill? Why did it have to be permitted? Just have the chair rule it non-germane and let the Rethugs see if they can overrule the decision of the chair (which, if we have any semblance of party discipline, they can’t.)

As I recall, Ways and Means sets a “rule” for each bill. When the R’s were in charge, those would often allow for zero amendments from the floor. Apparently the rule on this one allowed a certain number of Republican amendments to be voted on. I know when we took over we promised to behave better than they did, but they continually misuse that grace and show they have not earned the right to be treated like adults. So why aren’t we attaching “zero amendment” rules to our key legislation? The public cares much less about inside politics like that then they do about actual results. If strongarm tactics get the results the public wants, we will be rewarded, not punished. But every time something like this — or the last-minute pre-recess FISA bill it intends to correct, or the MoveOn condemnation fiasco — happens we look foolish and weak, like we don’t really know how to run the House, like we aren’t even in the majority.

I am continually disappointed with how we are so outmaneuvered in both chambers that the Rethugs essentially still run things despite losing their majority status. It also shows me whoat a truly lousy job we did in the minority that we could never have the same results in opposition that the Rethugs do.

We need to get a whole lot tougher if we are going to do any good or stay in the majority very long.

  • i’m so tired of this. i’m beginning to think that all the democrats in congress need to be replaced along with all the republicans. neither one of them is really representing their constituents.

  • How about a measure demanding the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, instead of this Mickey Mouse crap?

  • Here! Here! You’re right, this was childishness at its worst. The Democrats this time really had no choice but to compromise.

    Now we have to make it a priority to lobby Spineless Specter as our last line of defense.

    And let him know if he folds this time, he’ll be the top targeted race in the country.

  • Wait, I forgot. Without the reliable boogeyman in the person of Osama bin Laden, the Reich Wing wouldn’t have its most powerful Pavlovian bell in its authoritarian bag of tricks.

    Disgusting.

  • This only seems childish to people who actually think about these things, which most Americans don’t… And among them, there are those who see the political advantage that comes from this. So, it can work.

    More and more, the Repubs are looking like political masters, even if they are governance incompetents. If the Dems don’t figure out soon how to out maneuvre these guys, they will return to the minority soon… which would be a tragedy.

  • Arghhh…

    Legal language declaring no limits on the activities that might help in the the detention/capture a particular person (OBL) or group (AQI) could help open the door to all kinds of further repression.

    Why not declare a moratorium on search and seisure laws until the LAPD can detain or kill all the street gangs? And every bank robber… and the elder Jimmy Hoffa might still be out there…

    The more laws and order are made prominent,
    The more thieves and robbers there will be. – Lao-tzu

  • Perhaps the Democrats should have an umbrella rule that NO amendments may be added to any legislation after it comes to the floor.

    I’d also like to see pork barrel projects presented as individual bills, not riders.

  • I don’t presume to be any kind of expert on parliamentary procedure and the rules of the House and Senate, but I admit to not understanding how it is that the Democrats keep finding themselves in these kinds of situations.

    On a purely theoretical level, I understand that allowing the minority to have a voice is probably the right thing to do – we sure wished we had had one when the GOP was in the majority – but the reality is that doing so means there really is no advantage to having that majority; why can’t the Democrats act as though they have the power – and then use it?

    I see this as a failure of leadership; I don’t care how often Nancy Pelosi lists all the legislation the House has passed, it doesn’t make up for failing to strategize and cut off opportunities for the GOP to end up controlling the outcomes.

    I am preparing myself for a terrible news day, with a likely failure to override the S-CHIP veto, and folding on telecom immunity. Why are the Democrats caving in to the president with a less-than-25% approval rating? They ought to be ignoring him, not bending over for him, for God’s sake.

    It’s getting very hard not to be utterly demoralized.

  • This only seems childish to people who actually think about these things, which most Americans don’t…

    That would include some very serious members of the MSM. Here’s WaPo’s take on the Republican ploy:

    Disclosure of the deal followed a decision by House Democratic leaders to pull a competing version of the measure from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents and GOP parliamentary maneuvers.

    The collapse marked the first time since Democrats took control of the chamber that a major bill was withdrawn from consideration before a scheduled vote. It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats’ bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure’s passage.

    How’s that for a pretty little narrative? Bush aides lobbied heavily against the bill; House Democratic leaders pulled the bill from the floor because they lacked the votes to prevail over Republican opponents; Democratic collapse; Bush victory.

  • Lawmakers didn’t want to be in a position of voting for an amendment, no matter how ridiculous, that might be construed as “weak” on terrorism.

    That just makes them as stupid, as childish, and much more wimpy than the Republicans.

    What’s the bloody problem with every Democrat standing up and saying: “This language is already in the bill. This amendment is only designed to delay the bill by sending it back into committee. So I vote against it.”

    When they say to themselves and each other: “No, no, we can’t vote against it because they will paint us as weak on terrorism!”, they are just saying they think we are stupid and childish.

    (And can someone explain to me why it’s the end of the world if the bill does go back to committee and get slightly delayed?)

  • It’s all about getting the Bush Dogs to hump Dear Leader’s leg instead of widdling themselves.

    Oops! I meant humping Dear Leader’s leg after widdling themselves.

    Sorry.

  • Comments are closed.