A valuable piece. I should think it might have been additionally informative and helpful to highlight more specifically that which of the GOP in the House are presumably responsible for this (in addition to the Speaker). Who are the 25 and are there others? Maybe I missed that in reading the piece too quickly.
Thanks, Chris. Here’s a link to the letter and full list of signatories: https://x.com/RepFine/status/2034290150969135583?s=20. For the most part, it’s the typical list of House Republicans who tend to rise up against GOP leadership: Anna Paulina Luna, Lauren Boebert, Chip Roy, Scott Perry, Andrew Clyde, Byron Donalds, Andy Ogles, Andy Biggs, Cory Mills, among others.
Thanks, Gabe. I would have presumed that, but felt that, should your piece get wider distribution, everyone should know precisely. Of course, no surprises on that list as far as I can tell.
But what actually allows a small percentage of the House from holding these popular bills hostage? Is it a procedural tool or is Johnson just worried about his position if he brings them to the floor? Can a discharge position be used?
Good question. There are basically three ways a bill gets to the House floor for a vote: through what’s known as a “rule” (which is generally only used for party-line legislation), through “suspension of the rules” (which requires two-thirds support), and through a discharge petition (which requires 218 members to sign on). Anna Paulina Luna and other allied Republicans have signaled they’ll oppose a rule for any Senate bill, which pretty much guarantees it would fail -- indeed, since they’ve made their threat, only one Senate bill has gotten through the House through a rule vote, and that was the GOP reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP. The suspension calendar is overseen by Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise, the Majority Leader. Most of these Senate bills would pass if put up under suspension of the rules -- and, indeed, a few have gotten through this way since the threat from Luna and co. But by and large, Scalise has been putting House bills on the suspension calendar, to a much greater degree than the House in previous Congresses. A discharge petition could be used but many of these bills are, frankly, probably not viewed as salient enough for enough GOP members to risk angering their party leadership. So it’s a mixture of all three tools: House Republicans having a narrow enough majority that a few can sink a rule vote has crossed off that path; Scalise largely bowing to the demands on the suspension calendar to mostly put up House bills; and a discharge petition being a larger step than members are willing to take for any of the bills in question.
Another excellent analysis of a problem that shouldn't exist. Sounds like both houses should go to mandatory sessions of family therapy before returning to their districts in this "vacation"
Another brilliant otherwise unreported story, Gabe!
I was thinking about whether Cruz was serious and then I read about his blockage. Of course, I have mixed feelings because "we go low when they go low" isn't inspiring. Still, I wonder what Cruz or his staff would say about two approaches to un-sticking things:
(1) Negotiation: The four leaders get together and agree on which identical or nearly identical bills to pass with trade-offs so each chamber gets about an equal number.
(2) Shaming: The exact opposite. Cruz gives a speech (tailor made for an attack ad) where he says these five representatives are blocking this bill releasing sex abuse survivors from their vows of silence. "Why is Rep ___ against survivors?"
Thanks, shows how broken our Congress really is due to petty political squabbling. It’s GD discussing to waste some much time and deny Americans of much needed legislation. How many more kids might be sexually abused while we wait for them!
Everything in this article is excellent except the characterization of the fued as petty. Petty is the argument about which side of the capitol in which to hold a meeting. In contrast - and regardless of whether one supports or opposes it - the SAVE Act is huge deal and the fight about it provokes volcanic passions precisely because the stakes are enormous. If Senate Republicans thought it was some inconsequential and minor issue, and that House intransigence on the other matters was intolerable, then they would just go ahead and try to hold a vote on it and invite the certain Democrati filibuster and then give up after some period after they fail to get cloture. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership has behaved in a manner from the very beginning from which the only reasonable inference is that it's extremely important to them for a variety of reasons and political calculations to never bring it to a vote at all. Nothing about that can reasonably be described as "petty" it is raw and high stakes power politics playing out in the open with the gradual escalation of force (well, procedural tactics) that is the certain consequence.
The behavior of the Senate and House sending identical bills back to each other is obnoxious. I saw the link for the 1960s in the piece, and I’ll go back and read that to see if my question is answered, but is this behavior of sending identical bills back to the other chamber new to this Congress, or has it happened with this frequency in the past?
A valuable piece. I should think it might have been additionally informative and helpful to highlight more specifically that which of the GOP in the House are presumably responsible for this (in addition to the Speaker). Who are the 25 and are there others? Maybe I missed that in reading the piece too quickly.
Thanks, Chris. Here’s a link to the letter and full list of signatories: https://x.com/RepFine/status/2034290150969135583?s=20. For the most part, it’s the typical list of House Republicans who tend to rise up against GOP leadership: Anna Paulina Luna, Lauren Boebert, Chip Roy, Scott Perry, Andrew Clyde, Byron Donalds, Andy Ogles, Andy Biggs, Cory Mills, among others.
Thanks, Gabe. I would have presumed that, but felt that, should your piece get wider distribution, everyone should know precisely. Of course, no surprises on that list as far as I can tell.
But what actually allows a small percentage of the House from holding these popular bills hostage? Is it a procedural tool or is Johnson just worried about his position if he brings them to the floor? Can a discharge position be used?
Good question. There are basically three ways a bill gets to the House floor for a vote: through what’s known as a “rule” (which is generally only used for party-line legislation), through “suspension of the rules” (which requires two-thirds support), and through a discharge petition (which requires 218 members to sign on). Anna Paulina Luna and other allied Republicans have signaled they’ll oppose a rule for any Senate bill, which pretty much guarantees it would fail -- indeed, since they’ve made their threat, only one Senate bill has gotten through the House through a rule vote, and that was the GOP reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP. The suspension calendar is overseen by Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise, the Majority Leader. Most of these Senate bills would pass if put up under suspension of the rules -- and, indeed, a few have gotten through this way since the threat from Luna and co. But by and large, Scalise has been putting House bills on the suspension calendar, to a much greater degree than the House in previous Congresses. A discharge petition could be used but many of these bills are, frankly, probably not viewed as salient enough for enough GOP members to risk angering their party leadership. So it’s a mixture of all three tools: House Republicans having a narrow enough majority that a few can sink a rule vote has crossed off that path; Scalise largely bowing to the demands on the suspension calendar to mostly put up House bills; and a discharge petition being a larger step than members are willing to take for any of the bills in question.
Another excellent analysis of a problem that shouldn't exist. Sounds like both houses should go to mandatory sessions of family therapy before returning to their districts in this "vacation"
Another brilliant otherwise unreported story, Gabe!
I was thinking about whether Cruz was serious and then I read about his blockage. Of course, I have mixed feelings because "we go low when they go low" isn't inspiring. Still, I wonder what Cruz or his staff would say about two approaches to un-sticking things:
(1) Negotiation: The four leaders get together and agree on which identical or nearly identical bills to pass with trade-offs so each chamber gets about an equal number.
(2) Shaming: The exact opposite. Cruz gives a speech (tailor made for an attack ad) where he says these five representatives are blocking this bill releasing sex abuse survivors from their vows of silence. "Why is Rep ___ against survivors?"
Thanks, shows how broken our Congress really is due to petty political squabbling. It’s GD discussing to waste some much time and deny Americans of much needed legislation. How many more kids might be sexually abused while we wait for them!
Everything in this article is excellent except the characterization of the fued as petty. Petty is the argument about which side of the capitol in which to hold a meeting. In contrast - and regardless of whether one supports or opposes it - the SAVE Act is huge deal and the fight about it provokes volcanic passions precisely because the stakes are enormous. If Senate Republicans thought it was some inconsequential and minor issue, and that House intransigence on the other matters was intolerable, then they would just go ahead and try to hold a vote on it and invite the certain Democrati filibuster and then give up after some period after they fail to get cloture. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership has behaved in a manner from the very beginning from which the only reasonable inference is that it's extremely important to them for a variety of reasons and political calculations to never bring it to a vote at all. Nothing about that can reasonably be described as "petty" it is raw and high stakes power politics playing out in the open with the gradual escalation of force (well, procedural tactics) that is the certain consequence.
The behavior of the Senate and House sending identical bills back to each other is obnoxious. I saw the link for the 1960s in the piece, and I’ll go back and read that to see if my question is answered, but is this behavior of sending identical bills back to the other chamber new to this Congress, or has it happened with this frequency in the past?
Stupid, stupid, stupid! Fire the whole lot of these obstructionists the next time they face their voters.